¿Un español que habla a presidente? Part 2

This is a follow up to my post last month about candidates who speak Spanish. A huge portion of this country is Spanish speaking and it is a huge advantage for a candidate to be able to reach out to these voters.

Here is a behind the scenes video of Sen. Chris Dodd being interviewed by Univision. Especially because he is a 'low profile' candidate, he should utilize this in his campaign.

New York Times correspondent killed in Iraq

This story is a must read.

Khalid W. Hassan, an Iraqi correspondent for the New York Times was gunned down while traveling in his car in Iraq yesterday . Hassan, like countless others, was just trying to make a living for his family.

After his car was hit by a spray of gunfire he text messaged his mother telling her that he was alright, minutes later he was shot in the head at close range while talking on his cell phone. (We know this because a "Policeman" witnessed it. Why wasn't he killed or take action...I don't know).

Another alarming part of this story is that Hassan's pockets were emptied by his murderer. Which means they took his ID that allows him into the US occupied 'safe' zones.

This is just another example of how bad things are in Iraq. I'd like to think that I am well versed on the current situation in Iraq, but I even get confused when the talk turns to Sunni, Shiite, death squads, or al-Sadyr. It seems to change every time I start to understand it. Who is trying to kill who? And why?

Maybe they don't even know.

This could be why nobody has any good ideas on how to solve this crisis.

Saint Bill

Bill Clinton, while campaigning for his wife, criticized President Bush's decision to remove the prison sentence (not a pardon) for "Scooter" Libby (how he got the nickname "Scooter" is beyond me).

While its nice to see good ol' Bill out and about, doing what he does best...criticizing others. It is ridiculous for Bill Clinton to be passing judgement on anyone in such situations.

Clinton stated, "...they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”

Is he criticizing someone else as treating the law as a minor obstacle? This coming from a guy who committed perjury, and was impeached as president?!

I thought Bill believed in second chances. At least that is what his wife gave him and what one would think when they hear that he pardoned 140 people in his final hours in the Oval Office. Including a man who evaded over $10 million dollars in back taxes, who just so happened to be a large donor to the Democratic party (and Mrs. Clinton's campaign).

Pardon happy Mr. Clinton then tried a cheap shot at President Bush saying, “You have to think; we’ve seen what happens when you don’t think.” ...Yea, you stain a blue dress and get impeached.

Bloomberg the Independent?

Can New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg make a serious run at the presidency as an Independent? Countless stories this past week suggest that the Mayor is going to do it, come hell or high water.

As a billionaire candidate financing his own campaign he doesn't have to answer (give special favors) to donors. As an Independent he can do whatever he wants, and doesn't have to please a party of single minded people.

This is a first folks! OK a second, I remember the ears.

Bloomberg has been studying the campaign of Ross Perot, and he is planning on duplicating the fellow billionaire's efforts with even more success.

A CNN/Opinion Research Poll this past week showed that people are open to an independent candidate:

Clinton (D) 41%
Giuliani (R) 38%
Bloomberg (I) 17%

Obama (D) 40%
McCain (R) 34%
Bloomberg (I) 21%

Keep in mind that this poll is conducted before Bloomberg has even begun a campaign. These numbers would be fantastic if he had been campaigning for months. I personally get excited when I see an Independent pull more than a percentage point!

How do these other candidates who have their "myspace" websites, texting for dollars, consultants attached to the hip, flying around shaking hands, kissing babies, and waving at folks, feel when this guy mentions that he might run for president and he instantly pulls in 20% of a poll, without the backing of the 'sacred' party?

It means that Obama was right. We are ready for a (real) new kind of politics.

Any Change in Iraq?

A story in the Washington Post makes you realize how bad the living conditions in Iraq really are. Forget the Democrat and Republican accusations and complaints, just read the article.

These people are just like us, but they rarely have electricity, are dying from heat exhaustion, and their lives are in danger at all times in their own homes.

"He pays no more attention to the helicopters that roar overhead than he would to a passing truck, except that the street in front of his house is blocked off by concrete barriers. The rat-a-tat of AK-47s is so frequent that it's possible not to hear it anymore. And the new rooftop pool has eased his family's cabin fever, offering a refreshing substitute for visits they no longer make to parks, clubs, markets and friends' homes."

The Iraqi citizens have no faith at all in their government, "Forget about reconstruction -- what we are waiting for is change in the whole state," he said. "I just want one sincere, honorable person running Iraq. If he rules, even if we have to wait five or six years, there will be hope. But with the people we have now, even if you build 100 power plants, there's no hope."

In 115 degree heat having no power is the last thing you want, add suicide bombings, and the sound of AK-47s all around you it almost fits the description of hell.

"A June 12 study by the National Security Network, a private advocacy group, found that while the United States has spent $3.1 billion to improve electricity in Iraq, the power generated in May was 6 percent less than prewar levels. "Over the past three weeks, Baghdad has suffered severe power and water shortages of up to 23 hours a day," the study said."

It seems that our government is arguing over things that don't even matter, and won't improve anything. Congress spends weeks on things such as the $3.1 billion to improve electricity, yet it doesn't help the Iraqis out at all.

So as you sit there enjoying the benefits of electricity think of some ways that our government can actually produce change in Iraq...it all starts with ending the political bickering that just takes us in circles.

I know the subjects of the slew of emails I will now receive, and its a sad state of affairs that whenever I say something negative about Iraq I am called a 'left winger.' Our minds are in the completely wrong spot! Think about what can be done to cause change, not wonder if your idea would be OK with your 'party leader' who doesn't know your name.

Detach yourself from 'your' party and think for yourself once in a while!

Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2008?

A story from the AP suggests that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants The Governator to run with him.

That would be a very strong ticket, and with Bloomberg leaving the GOP this week it would be a bipartisan ticket!!It's about time!

There is just one problem, The Governator is not eligible to be president or vice-president because he is a naturalized citizen, he (obviously) wasn't born here.

However, these laws have never been challenged in the courts, and could be changed. Schwarzenegger is a great Governor, and is truly the only politician today that could care less about partisanship, my kind of guy!

The 12th Amendment bars any naturalized citizen from becoming vice-president. This law should be challenged, as should the constitutional requirement that only allows natural born citizens to become president.

These laws were created to ensure that no foreign person would have power in the early stages of the United States. It is no longer 1776, and every potential candidate for any elected office is put through the ringer. We find things out about candidates that we don't even want to know.

I don't think that the day Arnold becomes Vice President he will only speak in German and suddenly take over the world.

$$ Plse? Are you kidding me?

According to the NYT's political blog John Edwards is rolling out a text for dollars campaign tonight.

The Edwards campaign will send out nearly 13,000 text messages to supporters asking for last minute (of the quarter) support. I don't know how you would feel, but getting a text message asking for money would only ensure that the candidate would lose my vote!

Apparently Edwards is not the only texter! Obama and Hillary have similar text "services." These campaigns text campaign updates to their supporters. Honestly, what can these texts possibly say?

Message from: Hillary
I love America, I need more money

That's about it. What kind of updates are there at this stage in the campaign? Who needs updates on their phone about a campaign? Isn't reading about it online and in the paper enough? This isn't a fast moving sporting event, text updates are not needed!

All these campaigns are trying to do is keep in touch to raise more money. There is no actual news or benefit for the supporter.

Why is it that only Democrats are employing these odd campaign techniques?

Look at me!

The 2008 presidential candidates are going high tech. As if the myspace type websites wern't enough, the campaigns are now throwing their money at political blogs and google adsense.

According to the Wall Street Journal, in the entire 2004 campaign the parties and candidates spent a total of around $17,000 for ads on political blogs. During one week last month Democrat John Edwards spent 'nearly the same amount' on more than 25 liberal blogs.

In the first quarter alone Edwards spend $37,981 on ads on political blogs. Chris Dodd spend $24,653, Hillary Clinton $23,277, Barack Obama $12,036, Mitt Romney (the only Republican listed) $4,207.

Ads on blogs are cost effective when compared to traditional advertising. At this stage in the campaign the candidates are trying to appeal to the most extreme of their parties, as they are typically the only voters in primary elections. The majority of these party loyalists read blogs on a daily basis. By having ads on these blogs the candidate is putting his or her face in front of these prized voters in a very efficient way.

Candidates are also experimenting with Google AdWords. Sen. McCain is aggresively using this service. McCain's text running ads are pegged to some 2,500 words. Mitt Romney is using AdWords with a coupld hundred key words. How well does AdWords work? You tell me!--------------->

¿Un español que habla a presidente?

Would being fluent in Spanish increase the effectiveness of our next president?

With our immigration crisis and rising Hispanic population I believe it is a necessity for our leader to be able to speak directly to this large population. Of all the current 2008 candidates only two (Richardson and Biden) speak Spanish fluently.

Many candidates believe that if they hablan español their poll numbers will improve. I have read that there are even weekly Spanish lessons for all members of Congress. After all Hispanics are the largest minority in America, nearly 15% of the American population . This is a huge group of potential voters.

It seems that most foreign heads of state speak English, but our presidents never speak their language. Why is that?

According to The New York Times, Michael Bloomberg and Newt Gingrich are currently honing their Spanish skills. Barack Obama tried to deliver a radio broadcast in Spanish, but was choppy and most likely took numerous takes.

The immigration crisis needs to be solved, and a Spanish speaking president will be a great step forward.

Obama faulters

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's call for a "different kind of politics" is slowly evolving into a mere reflection of traditional politics.

Recently the Obama campaign clandestinely distributed documents that suggest former president Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton have received money from Indian-Americans and companies that do business in India.

Obama has since disavowed these documents saying that they were "stupid and caustic," and that neither he nor his senior staff had previously seen them.

As you may already know, I am going to be the last person to defend a Clinton. But when you punch someone in the face you can't say "oh, I take that back." Whats done is done!

If you ask me, it was a very "Clinton-esque" move by Obama. Releasing documents, getting the thought of how greedy the Clintons can be in (undecided) voters heads, then as these voters realized that it was odd that this was released by Obama, the Senator "takes it back." It is actually very smart politics.

He put some doubt in undecided voters, and he doesn't look bad for doing it because he "never saw" the documents before. It was a "mistake" by his research team. More like a calculated effort on the part of his senior political advisers, but hey that's politics right?

After all of Obama's preaching for a new kind of politics, he does this. He has taken a step back in my eyes.

But we do live in America, where a president can commit perjury, be impeached, and his poll numbers go up.

Courtesy of the New York Times, you can read the documents that Obama never saw here:
Document on Hillary Clinton
Document on Bill Clinton

Two Hillaries

">
"Southern Clinton"
">
"Washington Clinton"
The fact that Hillary thinks that acting will get her elected as our president is an insult to our intelligence. Her accent was fake, coached, and forced (and annoying!).

Some are saying that her southern rant was a quote taken out of context. This is false, you can see the full video of her speech on youtube, she was quoting someone, but the accent stayed throughout the speech.

Fake Candidates

A very interesting video has been posted on nytimes.com about Rudy Giuliani. It suggests that Giuliani, who is typically a loose cannon, completely changes his persona when he campaigns.

This is odd because the whole theme of the video was that it was great how restrained Giuliani can be on the campaign trail.

Do we really want a president who is a completely different person than who we voted for? In that case how about everyone vote for me, and get Dennis Kucinich in the White House, what's the difference?

It is odd that we all know that candidates do this, and we really don't even care.

This takes us back to the humorous example of Hillary Clinton using a thick southern accent when speaking to southern voters, and a New York accent when in New York.

Regardless of why they do it, it is misleading.

The whole purpose of a campaign is to show your true self, which is why campaigns last so long. Most candidates end up weeding themselves out like Howard Dean (hoooohahaaaa!!!).

The argument that suggests candidates change their persona during elections to be more "like the people" is ridiculous. If they are like 'us,' then they don't have to fake anything.

When I see John Kerry trying to hunt, flashing as many 'thumbs up' as humanly possible to the core of photographers who were summoned into the wilderness makes me a bit queasy.

We know when candidates are acting, it is not a secret. Why do we let them get away with it?

I just can't wait for the hooooohaaaaaaaa!!! moments of 2008.

Is Hell Freezing Over?

Democrats, Republicans, (Joe Lieberman) AND President Bush are all working together on the much talked about comprehensive immigration reform bill.

I will not break down the bill because it is still in the works. But the current bill would grant 12 million illegal immigrants legal status. I have a feeling that this bill will not make it's way through the channels.

But it is good to see everyone working together on an important issue that is long overdue for reform. We will finally get to see the results of working together.

See the New York Time story.

The Democrats are Getting Serious

It only makes news is Obama and Hillary do it, so here it goes.

Today both presidential front runners announced their support for cutting off funding to our troops at war. Obama supports such a measure “to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it’s long past time to change course.”

This is in support of a bill by Sen. Feingold, of McCain/Feingold "fame." Maybe Mr. Feingold should stick to campaign finance legislation, because his bill calls for troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days...haven't we traveled down this dead end road too many times already this year?

Legislation that calls for troop withdrawal will never be signed by President Bush. If Congress uses the "purse strings" and cut off funding for the troops they will look like they do not support the troops. With so many Senators running for president, they don't want to look unsupportive which is why cutting of the funding will never happen. It is just a threat.

The only solution that I can see both stubborn parties agreeing to is the benchmark legislation, in which the Iraqi government must meet benchmarks in order to keep our troops around. But even this has its flaws.

Willard's Millions

On slow news days (Saturdays) I tend to find out things about the 2008 candidates that I didn't know.

All you hear about Mitt Romney is that he is Mormon, believe it or not there is more to good ol' Mitt than his Mormonism. Did you know that Romney's first name is Willard, and his net worth is around $350 million?

Willard aside, that is a pretty healthy net worth, I had no idea he was that wealthy. That's like Scrooge McDuck, Trump, Perot, Forbes wealthy. In my mind that gives him extra points because he made it himself. Anyone that can create that amount of wealth is a smart person, and can manage a lot. Two qualities that a president should have (go ahead insert Bush joke here).

No word on if he swims around in his dough like Scrooge.

Giuliani plays political chicken

Rudy Giuliani (who for some reason has begun to use his middle initial) announced that he favors abortion rights, gay rights, and restrictions on guns. In other words, he announced that he will not be winning the primary.

I have to give credit to Giuliani for not listening to the fat cats in the smoke filled back rooms and showing what he really stands for.

Unfortunately this will lead to his downfall in the primary election. Typically only far right wingers (in Republican primaries) vote in primary elections. A right winger will not vote for someone who supports abortion rights, let alone gay rights, and gun control.

Rudy must be feeling that he has to try something new (tell his real views) to separate himself from the pack of candidates who are hard to distinguish.

I hope that this version of 'political chicken' works out for Giuliani, I would love to see someone with different views than their party win a primary.

House rejects 9-month withdrawal

Today the House rejected a bill that would require our troops to be withdrawn from Iraq within 9 months. The big question is not why did the largely anti-war Congress reject such a bill, but why are our elected Representatives wasting their time drafting such bills.

Don't their constituents have other pressing issues for them to deal with? I'm sure voters didn't elect their members to office so they could waste their time drafting bills that are guaranteed to get nowhere.

A much less dramatic bill, the timetable bill, was vetoed by the president. Why would anyone in their right mind think that a 9-month withdrawal bill would even make it to the president's desk?

Congress needs to compromise with each other and draft bills that are not a waste of time and paper.

al-Rubaie visits Washington

According to the New York Times, yesterday the Iraqi national security advisor Mowaffak al-Rabaie visited Washington to try to convince lawmakers, "... that early withdrawal would lead to chaos."

Mr. al-Rabaie meet with numerous lawmakers, including many Democrats who have taken the popular "we need to withdrawal now" stance. In those meetings al-Rabaie explained to the politicians (who have never been to Iraq) that troop withdrawal deadlines are unrealistic and would embolden the enemy.

This whole Democratic stance on Iraq is like a 'bandwagoning fan.' They want to withdrawal now because the intelligence for the reasons to invade were false. Its as simple as that.

If a politician was asked today if Iraq would be better off if our troops were withdrawn today (and if they were guaranteed a re-election regardless of their answer) they would say NO.

If you look at the number of Iraqi civilians, and the number of Iraqi military and police (who are not even trustworthy and efficient yet) it is obvious that they cannot defend themselves against the terrorists. Hell, our troops are having a tough time at it. Do you really think if our troops left that all of a sudden the Iraqis would become sharp shooting GI Joes? Give me a break.

If we left, Iraq would become a terrorist training camp. We do need change our attack of this war. We need to go on offense. You can't win a war on defense.

Fred Thompson for President?

-Washington DC - "Dunt Dunt"

President Arthur Branch? If he does run, expect to see him down the stretch. Most people don't know that Thompson is a former Senator, not just the DA on Law and Order.

This would be a very interesting campaign. On top of the fact that a former or sitting Senator has not been elected president since JFK in 1961 (others were VPs, or not purely elected), it will be interesting to see how a well known actor will fare in a presidential bid.

Thompson is a great communicator, something I think the American people will demand of the next president. I don't know yet if he is taking the typical cookie-cutter republican stances on the issues, he is sitting back and watching before he attacks.

He is doing the smart thing by not announcing his candidacy as far in advance as the other candidates, he knows that it is not necessary to do so. He is showing the public that he is "interested," but is not sure if he wants to run. It gives the public the "want what you can't have" feel, making him seem more in demand.

He will be as popular as all the other candidates the week that he announces due to his celebrity, he wants to ride that wave into next November.

It has been proven that actors make good politicians. I'll write the lines, you can read between them.

Bipartisan heat on Iraq?

After President Bush vetoed the timetable bill this week(he called it a 'date for failure,' which I liked), Congress and the president are trying to compromise on a bill that sets benchmarks for the Iraqi government. What a novel concept.

Didn't the founders of our country create a three branch government so that the decision makers ("deciders") would have to compromise? If we wanted a dictatorship we wouldn't have Congress. It is obvious that the president doesn't want to pull out of Iraq, and it is obvious that Congress wants to pull out of Iraq. So how about they quit trying to convince each other that they are right? How about a compromise?

If Congress and the president don't start working together two years will go by with no progress...hmmmm could this be what Congress wants so they get a new Democratic president?

It obviously is or they wouldn't be spinning their wheels passing bills that the president has guaranteed to veto. They're just wasting time, doing the popular things even though they know nothing will come from it.

It will just make all Republicans look uncooperative and will pave a golden road to the White House for the Democratic nominee in 2008.

Slam Dunk

George Tenet, the former CIA Director, has published a book describing what went on during the planning stages of the Iraq war. Tenet is notorious for his certainty of Iraq possessing WMD, saying it was a "slam dunk."


When I first learned that Tenet was publishing a book I wondered how he could possibly defend his accusations of Iraq, I thought he would just go hide in the shadows with Colin Powell (who I still think should run for president).



Like a true politician, Tenet says his "slam dunk" accusation was taken out of context. Thanks for clearing that up...4 years later.


Maybe he should have told President Bush that he "suspected" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Not that it was a slam dunk! I just don't see how this can be taken out of context. This is simply the easy way out. Anything can be taken out of context, hell the word the can be taken out of context!


I also find it hard to believe that the director of the CIA, whose information is life or death in deciding to go to war, did not make himself clear to the president when he was deciding to invade a country! Give me a break Tenet!

It was extremely bad intelligence, or the weapons were moved before we got there. Its not like the Iraqis didn't know we were coming!


Tenet also discusses how there was little to no planning of the Iraq war. How gullible are we to believe this? Because we do believe it. Now a days we are looking for anything to make it seem that this whole war was one man's decision, when in fact it was not. Bush is not Napoleon.

Maybe when Bush is out of office he will take a page out of Tenet's (I refuse to say I'm wrong) book and say that he didn't actually order the Iraq war. His intentions were just taken out of context.

Congress to pass Iraq timetable bill

Today Senate majority leader Harry Reid said that Congress will send a bill to the president that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of troops out of Iraq.

The do-nothing Congress continues. Yes, President Bush has not used many vetoes during his administration, probably less than any other president, but he has PROMISED to veto this bill. Congress does not have the 2/3 majority in order to overwrite the presidential veto. What do they think Bush is going to do? Suddenly say, "Oh, you are right. Everything I have done and said in the past four years was wrong, my bad!"

This bill has been in the works by the Democrats for some time now and is nothing more than a colossal waste of time. Not to mention it is a stupid bill, a timetable for withdrawal only serves as an attack date for insurgents. There is no upside to this bill and its impending veto.

As usual, the only reason why the Democrats are pursuing this bill is because it makes them "look good" on election day. During their next campaign they can say that they did try to end the war, even though they actually had no more progress ending the war than the homeless guy who digs through my dumpster did.

Some would say that the Democrats are doing what their constituents want because they voted them into power to end the Iraq war. OK, well end it. Every single US Congressperson knows that this bill WILL NOT end the war. Then why pursue it?

How about actually compromising with the president? Come up with some sort of legislation that everyone will sign. Sounds impossible? Well it's not, and it is what the voters want the Democrats to do with their new "power."It sure as hell beats spending months on a bill that is guaranteed to be vetoed will still in the hands of the messenger boy!

John, you make this too easy

I don't want this to become a Doolittle bashing blog, although that would bring in the readers and raise my revenue. But he just makes it so damn easy!!

Today he gave up his seat in the Appropriations Committee amid his three millionth day of "alleged" scandal allegations. Basically this means that the little he was getting done (for his rich friends) he won't even be able to do now. He was elected to pass laws, he now has no pull to pass anything because of these scandals that were known about at election time.

He should resign his seat and let someone fill it that his peers will respect. This has been a wasted seat in Congress for years, and now it is simply worthless with Doolittle there.

He was only elected (besides because he is a Republican in a gerrymandered Republican stronghold) because of his "experience." Well his experience is now worthless because nobody in Congress respects him, nor do his constituents.

I have a feeling that news like this from Doolittle will keep coming for a few more days, stop, then pile on a few months from now...

Miller 2008!

Doolittle home raided in Virginia

I love this guy, it never stops! Yesterday Rep. John Doolittle's (seen here with his wife) Virginia home was raided by the FBI in connection with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Why did anyone vote for this guy last November?

This guy "represents" the district where I grew up, and where I am still registered to vote. I made it a point to drive up there last November to vote AGAINST him. This guy does nothing productive in the House and the only time we hear about him is when his homes get raided by the FBI.

This guy is just a prime example of how gerrymandering has destroyed free elections in this country. Voters had no reason to vote for this guy, but he still won.

Doolittle (if you're gonna be a politician, change your name...) said that he hopes the truth will prevail, yea so do I. This guy is more guilty than OJ, and the allegations just keeping piling on top of each other.

I can already see candidates licking their chops for the next time this guy is up for reelection. Hell, if I was 25 last November I would have ran against him!

Virginia Tech

This is obviously a horrific unthinkable tragedy. Unfortunately news media companies just can't get enough of it. Just as they do with terrorist attacks, they are glorifying this murderer.

On the front page of the New York Times today was a picture of the killer that he mailed to NBC News. He also mailed numerous other pictures and videos that are now being aired on TV every 3 seconds.

Why would he mail all that stuff to NBC News? Because he wanted to be on the front page and all over the news. We are giving this guy exactly what he wanted, and even though he was deranged he knew that the news companies could not resist putting his sickening images and words in front of millions of people all over the world.

We must stop this sort of glorifying. All that this does is show other mentally unstable individuals that if they do this they will be all over the news and on the front page!

If we want things like this to stop happening we need to focus the news coverage not on the killer, but on the victims. If the news coverage was focused on the lives on the victims and not glorifying the killer, other deranged would-be killers will see the human faces of this tragedy and not inside the mind of a killer. They would also see that it would get them nowhere to do such things.

Unfortunately right now, all that would-be killers see is that if they do things like this they will become famous, and that is a tragedy in itself.

Raising money Obama dominates Clinton

The New York Times published the results of first quarter fundraising by presidential candidates...Obama is winning.

A few weeks ago when Obama's numbers were not in Clinton had a huge lead over all Democratic hopefuls, now we have a new leader. Sen. Obama has raised $24.8 million for the primary with $19.2 million in the bank. Sen. Clinton has around $24 million for the primary.

The biggest component to this story is that former supporters of Bill Clinton, many of who were close enough to the Clinton's to stay in the Lincoln bedroom, are now supporting Sen. Obama's campaign.

All Hillary has is the loyal base of supporters resulting from the political machine assembled by her husband, the little qualifying experience she has is a direct result of her husband's popularity. Nobody is electing a simple lawyer with no experience to the Senate, let alone make her a leading candidate for president.

If she can't rely on her "loyal base" she has a snowball's chance in hell at getting the nomination.

Iran continues...

Iran's "president" has announced that Iran can now enrich uranium on a large scale (it is not really a large scale, and would take years to become any type of threat). Regardless of how primitive their nuclear technologies are, this is just dumb.

They are now defying two more UN resolutions, and are going to be subject of even more sanctions.

With Iran's "technology" they won't be able to make a bomb for 15 more years, but by then this "president" will have been removed from office by his own people because they won't be able to import anything because of his stupidity.

This is just another stupid move by a man with a history of doing little else.

Obama/Clinton 08'?

Or would it be Clinton/Obama 08'? Or would it be...

On David Letterman Sen. Obama was asked about a potential Obama/Clinton ticket. Obama replied that it would be a powerful ticket, but which order would it be in?

Honestly I think that Obama will get the nomination and he will choose Clinton or Edwards as his running-mate. I would prefer it if he chose McCain, but ehhhh yea I know...

Senate Passes War-Spending Bill

What a surprise. Even when I'm on vacation Congress acts as I predicted. Congress has continued their descent into the history books as a do-nothing Congress. The Senate has now passed a bill that would fund the troops, but also set a date for withdrawal.

What makes these Senators think that the president will not veto this bill while still in the hands of the messenger boy? Do they have the 2/3 to back this up (NO)?

First of all, it is simply a dumb idea to have a "withdrawal date." All that this date would do is tell insurgents when to attack. As I have said before, I believe that cutting the funding would be the absolute worst thing to do, we need to finish this war with our boots on the ground.

However, if Congress does not want this war to go on any further they need to cut the funding all together, they have the power to do so. If they want to stop the war, they can do it. But they just keep playing "cover my ass" politics. So when the 2008 elections roll around they can say they "tried." They don't want our troops to retreat, they just don't want to agree with the Republicans.

Walter Reed problems continue...

Today the Army's Chief Medical Officer resigned. What is going on here? Do they think that resigning is going to fix the horrific problems at Walter Reed?

How about they spend a little less time playing "cover our ass" politics and help the men and women who were scarred for life fighting for OUR freedoms. For once I would like to read a headline about Walter Reed that has to do with improvements to the hospital, and not another pointless resignation.

Yes, the hospital was horrifically managed, but does quitting really make it any better? These guys are in the ARMY, and they are quitting? How about owning up to their mistakes, fixing them, and then quitting? These high ranking Army personnel are only able to have their posts because of the sacrifices from the men and women who they are now neglecting. These problems can't be fixed when no one is in office.

President Gingrich...

Huh? The Wall Street Journal (the least accessible website on earth) had a story today about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and his comeback.

First of all wsj.com is terrible, every newspaper on earth allows you to read their stories online, but not the wsj...

Anyhow, I think Mr. Gingrich is smart in not coming out and saying that he is running for president 2 years before the election. He will announce that he is running a year from now, the popularity of his "comeback" (he might wear #45 for all I know) will rocket him to the top of the polls. The presidential race is essentially a popularity contest, and most people who launch early become stale, so props to Gingrich for knowing that.

You might think his campaign has begun with stories about his infidelity during the time of President Clinton's impeachment making headlines recently (I hear the sounds of the Clinton crap machine churning).

Obama's investments...Thanks Mrs. Clinton

An article in The New York Times discusses how Sen. Obama invested in companies (in 2005) owned by some of his supporters. Obama's people said that he had no knowledge of this, and when he found out he sold the stocks for a $13,000 loss.

I just love this time of year. Usually we find out some dumb things about candidates in the pre-election years. But when a Clinton comes into the mix we are assured that we will find out some really stupid things about their opponents.

This was in 2005, two years ago. HE SOLD THE STOCKS FOR A LOSS when he found out where his financial advisers put the money. Which no longer makes this a story. This is right up there with the parking tickets...

Do you hear news stories about stupid things Mrs. Clinton has done (it would be pretty damn easy wouldn't it)? NO, that should speak volumes about her opponents.

Thanks again Hillary, I can't wait to find out some meaningless fact about Sen. Obama in the coming days. Maybe look into shavings products that he may have used, maybe one of them is bad for the environment.

Obama's parking tickets...thanks Hillary!

FOX NEWS (of course) today reported that Sen. Obama had 15 outstanding parking tickets that he was cited with while attending law school at Harvard in the late 1980s. He paid them this past January, just before he announced his candidacy for president.


Who cares, this is news?


This is not news, this is just humorous!


"Obama received 17 parking tickets in Cambridge between 1988 and 1991, mostly for parking in a bus stop, parking without a resident permit and failing to pay the meter, records from the Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation office show."

He consistantly parked in a bus stop? Was it unmarked...?


Anyways, Hillary Clinton, thank you for this latest bit of information!

Democrats to end the war?

A story in the New York Times outlines the Democrats plan for withdrawal out of Iraq by 2008. "Mr. Obey said the Democratic leadership’s plan “will set a timeline for bringing the United States’ participation in Iraq’s civil war to an orderly and responsible close.”"

I'm sorry but making a timeline for an orderly close to a civil war is impossible. If we give a timeline all it will do is serve as an attack date for terrorists. The day after Americans leave...ATTACK!

What a terrible plan. The Democrats continue to make it look like they are working day and night at ending the war. Unfortunately it is merely a front to appease the voters who put them in office.

Walter Reed

The horrific conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are unimaginable. Everyday I read a new story about neglect, unlivable conditions, and privatization in this medical center.

This is the main medical center for our troops who were badly injured defending our freedoms. They should all be given castles with people to wait on their every need, without these people you and I would be fighting off terrorists with broom sticks. Not only are these wounded soldiers scarred (and maimed) for life, their own government is giving them horrific conditions to heal in.

There is simply no excuse for anything that is happening there.

Today President Bush ordered a bipartisan committee to analyze the conditions at Walter Reed. (How come when a group of politicians need to be trusted they make sure it is a bipartisan committee? (Because a group of partisan politicians can't be trust, even though in every election we elect our representatives through partisan politics, it doesn't make sense, but thats a whole different post all together)).

Not only should these wounded soldiers be treated like gold, they should all be given a million dollars. I hate that everything you read these days is bashing President Bush, but on this issue I must jump in the fray. President Bush needs to not only get a bipartisan commission looking into this, the problems need to be fixed, and people need to be fired.

It is obvious that the president and his close circle are the few who believe in sending out our brave men and women into a shower of bullets. But when they come back home for treatment they get treated like this, it is ridiculous.

I would say write your congressman (or woman), but that won't do anything. Pressure from media exposure will, and these problems will be fixed very soon (with the help of bipartisanship).

More "President Bush"...

On slow news days YouTube seems to make its way onto my screen. I got a lot of responses to my last video of a President Bush impersonator, here is another one. He doesn't look like Bush until he starts speaking like him, it is hilarious.

How to End the War

An editorial in today's New York Times discusses the fact that al Qaeda is rebuilding in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is now gaining strength. This is unacceptable.

Looking past the NYT's typical left leaning, and (rightfully) criticizing of President Bush's tactics on Iraq, their recommendations are almost good, just not forceful enough. The terrorists camps which were destroyed in 2001 are now rebuilt because of the lack of American forces in Afghanistan. It doesn't matter which party you are a part of, its a fact.

Look, when we first went to Afghanistan in 2001 how long did it take to defeat the Taliban and destroy all the terrorist training camps? Not very long. These terrorists are obviously weak, and the fact that they are given the room to rebuilt shines light on the fact that our number of troops in Afghanistan is too low.

These terrorists are now going to Iraq, planting IEDs, and strapping on suicide vests. It is time to go on offense in these wars. I am sick and tired of hearing about death tolls, house resolutions, and calls for retreat. In Iraq we were on offense for a few months, and we did well. Now we are on defense, just hoping our soldiers don't get killed instead of attacking the cowardly "insurgents." The president's plan is good but it is weak. The only winning way out of Iraq is to take out all of the insurgents. Weak Iraqi soldiers (see my previous post on this topic) backed up by additional 21,000 troops is not good enough. It is an excuse, a scapegoat plan.

If we want to win in Iraq we need to deploy an additional 50,000-100,000 troops to Iraq, this number of soldiers would absolutely overwhelm the weak insurgents. After most of the insurgents are killed, the rest of them can go hide in spider holes like the courageous Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. With this much firepower, it would take a month to defeat the insurgents.

The same needs to happen in Afghanistan, we need an overwhelming number of troops to finish off the cowards. Where are we going to get these troops? If Americans could be convinced that we could end these wars once and for all, many would sign up willingly (I would). If that doesn't work, we need to use the draft.

(Another option that would work would be TALKS, imagine that. Everyone is fighting for something, we need to actually negotiate.) Politicians would have to come together for this one to happen...

If we just leave Iraq and Afghanistan, there will be attacks on American soil, because they will have the resources. We need to finish these wars on their turf once and for all. We need to stop playing defense, it does not win wars.

Politicians spending campaign contributions years after retirement

In tomorrow's New York Times there will be a story about how retired politicians are spending their unused campaign funds, on expensive dinners and gifts.

This is the kind of stuff Americans are sick of hearing about, but we can do nothing to change it. Politicians have become professionals are finding loophole after loophole, though loopholes. I understand that only a very small number of politicians do this sort of thing, but it only takes one story about it to make Americans think that they all do it.

In New York the law states the unused funds may not be used for activities “unrelated to a political campaign or the holding of a public office or party position.” Does that law sound clear? No, politicians wrote it. They get around it by saying they might run again someday, and they have to stay in touch with the people.

If politicians want the trust they need, they must make a law that says "unused campaign funds must be donated to families of 9/11 victims." End of discussion.

People do not contribute to a campaign so the politician can buy a $2,000 dinner years after the campaign is over. They contribute to get the candidate into office. Once the candidate is in office, or doesn't win office the money needs to be donated to charity.

McCain/Obama 2008?

It turns out that people other than me and my readers have a dream of a bipartisan presidential ticket. Unity08.com is a new group started by former presidential advisors. Their goal is not to start a third party, but to put together a bipartisan ticket for the 2008 Presidential Election. This is an awesome idea, I recommend that you check out the website, and read other news stories about Unity08. More to follow....

Links:

WashingtonPost.com story

CBSNews.com story

Unity08.com

UnitySupporters.com

Fortune Magazine story

CollegeUnity08.com

End of War in Iraq?

A story in the Washington Post today describes how Democrats are trying to repeal the 2002 Iraq war resolution.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden said, "The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."

While this does seem true, Congress will not end the Iraq war. They will pass nonbinding resolutions and try to repeal passed resolutions until their faces turn blue, but at the end of the day they will not end the war.

This is all about elections. It is obvious that the Iraq war is very unpopular among American voters, if presidential candidates don't seem as if they are doing everything they can to end the war right now they will not get elected, its that simple.

If Congress wanted to end the war they could, they control the funding. All they have to do is cut off the funding, however this would be a terrible thing to do.

Over the next year we will be frequently hearing about resolutions and other measures that will continue to create the illusion that the Democrats will try to end the war on their terms, but its just politics. Nothing will change until someone stands up.

Iran: Spineless Leadership Wants War

What is wrong with this guy? A Washington Post story today reported that the deadline set by the UN Security Council for Iran to "suspend its enrichment-related activities" has come and past.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (seen in this picture during his hostage taking days) "vowed again today that Iran would not give up its nuclear activities." Iran claims that they are developing peaceful nuclear energy.

If that's the case then why won't they accept free aide from other countries including materials that would speed their pursuit for "peaceful nuclear energy."

There is no logical reason to refuse such offers, but Iran has. Why? Because they are trying to make a nuclear bomb to drop on Israel. "President" Ahmadinejad is notorious for frequently calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.

During the (odd) war last summer ID carrying Iranian agents were captured among the Hezbollah fighters. And now the Iranians are supplying Iraqi insurgents with IED devices to attack US troops.

The leadership in Iran is spineless. If they want to fight another country, fight them. Don't send in covert agents and try and hide yourself. That is the way of terrorists, the most spineless people on the face of the earth.

In the Post's story the great Ahmadinejad also sent a message to global powers, "If you return to the path of righteousness, you will have the friendship of our nation, and if you insist on your wrongdoing you will experience humiliation, misery and shame."

Oh, what is the path of righteousness Mr. A.? Sending in covert fighters to fight Israel, making bombs for Iraqi insurgents, or how about saying that the Holocaust never happened?

It seemed that a week or so ago Iran seemed to be up for negotiations. At least that is what everyone in Iran wants, except Mr. A. It worked for North Korea, lets just hope that Condi Rice can work some magic with Iran, or that Mr. A is overthrown by his citizens. I'd prefer to see that latter. The Iranian people are much smarter than he is.

Clinton v. Obama...Words Edition

YES! It is finally getting started, something we all saw coming. Clinton v. Obama...words edition. Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times today has Sen. Clinton meaner than a dog crappin tacks.

In the column Dowd interviewed billionaire Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a one time major supporter of Bill Clinton. Geffen, who hosted a fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama last night, made some stabbing remarks about the Clintons. "I think that they believe she's the easiest to defeat, Obama is inspirational, and he's not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family."

I have to agree with both of these comments by Mr. Geffen. Most people are plain tired of having regimes here in America. Two families occupying the white house for 20 years already, possibly 8 more....man it give me a headache just thinking about it!

Today Sen. Clinton said "I want to run a very positive campaign, and I sure don't want Democrats or the supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction." Give me a break, that's like bin Laden saying "bombs are bad, I would never condone the use of them."

The Clintons are notorious for waging the nastiest, most secretive, hurtful campaigns of our time. They have already gotten started; do you remember the lie that Obama was schooled at an extremist school overseas. It made headlines for about a day. Most people knew it was a lie, but it got people talking. Where do you think that little white lie came from? On voting day, little things like that can change a voter's mind, and the Clintons know that better than you or me.

Today the Clinton camp called for Sen. Obama to denounce the comments by Mr. Geffen. This makes no logical sense. A supporter of his said the comments, Sen. Obama didn't. I support about 6 candidates right now(from both parties), one of them is Sen. Obama. Therefore I am to Obama's campaign nothing less than what Mr. Geffen is to Obama's campaign, a supporter. Going by Clinton's logic Obama should have to denounce my words when I say, "Hillary Clinton would make a terrible president."

As Mr. Geffen put it, "I don't think another incredibly polarizing figure...can bring the country together."

"The Black Scale"

Because of my post about "Obama's blackness" yesterday I have received a few requests to post this segment from Saturday Night Live last weekend.

Is Obama "Black?"

An article on today's front page of the San Francisco Chronicle brought Barack Obama’s race into question. The article says that some African Americans say that Sen. Obama is not a true African American because he is not a descendant of slaves. Sen. Obama’s father was from Kenya and his mother is from Kansas.

Are we really going to make this a question? Is this really on the front page of the SF Chronicle? Oh, ok here we go…

The people who say that Sen. Obama “is not black” because he “did not have the same experiences” of inequality and discrimination as other African Americans are not thinking clearly. When someone is discriminated against because of their race they aren’t asked if their ancestors were slaves. As Obama pointed out, when he walked down “the streets of Chicago, visited a barber shop or tried to hail a cab, everyone knew he was black.”

Al Sharpton’s comments in this story are dancing (the cha-cha) on the line of discriminatory (isn’t he against all people being discriminated against?), “just because you are our color doesn’t make you our kind.” Give me a break.

Sharpton and other African American leaders were upset that Obama made his announcement at the state capitol of Illinois and not at the “State of the Black Union” event that fell on the same day. The comment by one of the African American leaders, “he speaks to white folks and holds us at arm’s length” is ridiculous. Sharpton says he is not one of them, yet he is upset he didn't make his announcement at their convention? WOW!

Speaking in a historic place like the state capitol of Illinois simply does not distance Obama from African Americans. The man who ended slavery, Abraham Lincoln, served as an Illinois state representative in that building, it is where he gave is famous “house divided” speech, offices in that building served as Lincoln’s presidential headquarters in 1860, and it was also the scene of Lincoln’s final laying-in-state after his assassination in 1865.

We need to focus on our presidential candidates positions and beliefs, not where their parents were born.

Obama's announcement...sure beats a press release

Barack Obama's announcement drew over 16,000 people to the Illinois state capitol last week. It looked pretty cold out there, although I heard that Obama had a heater. In his speech he used typical "campaign rhetoric," but looking past that I actually found his speech somewhat inspiring. Other candidates have announced their candidacy through simple press releases and website launches, they have to be jealous.

President Bush with his clone

I first saw this impersonator on Jay Leno. Here is Steve Bridges alongside President Bush. Enjoy.

Iraqi Soldiers Are Not Ready

Regardless of what you think about President Bush, congress, or the Easter Bunny you have to agree that the insurgents in Iraq must be defeated. If they are not they will only grow stronger and cause more damage on the world (I don't want to write a book here, I'll tackle this subject on another day!).

There is much controversy around the president's decision to add troops to Baghdad to "back up" Iraqi forces in a strong attempt to crush the insurgents. I am somewhat conflicted about this decision. They need to take out these insurgents, but this new plan gives a lot of responsibility to the weak Iraqi army and police.

A New York Times article "In a New Joint U.S. - Iraqi Patrol, the Americans Go First," by Damien Cave and James Glanz, printed on Jan. 25 discussed a 'trial run' of how the new troops in Iraq are going to operate to get rid of the pesky insurgents. I wanted to add a link to the article but it is only available on "TimesSelect" so I can't add it here. The article described a day in which US troops were to assist Iraqi forces in house to house sweeps on deadly Haifa Street in Badhdad. On the day when the Iraqis were to lead searches of houses in the run down area the Iraqis didn't show up on time, the Americans went in alone. When the Iraqis did arrive "it was with the air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the Americans blew locks off doors with shotguns."

Throughout the day the troops were under fire from all different angles, needing smoke grenades and Bradley fighting vehicles to provide cover. The Iraqis didn't seem to really care about the dangerous operation. "Many of the Iraqi units that showed up late never seemed to take the task seriously, searching haphazardly, breaking dishes and rifling through personal CD collections in the apartments." The Iraqis were searching no more than half of the apartments they were designated to search. And at one point the Iraqis completely disappeared, and gunfire begun to be showered on the US troops..."the soldiers began to worry that the Iraqi soldiers were firing at them."

"One Iraqi soldier in the ally pointed his rifle at an American reporter and pulled the trigger. There was only a click: the weapon had no ammunition. The soldier laughed at his joke."

Now I don't know if this article is only telling half (or slanted left) of the story, but it seems to me that the Iraqis aren't up to the task.

The new campaign button

Much has been said about the 2008 presidential race already. One of the frequent topics is the utilization of the Internet by candidates. I have gone through a number of major candidates websites and I must say that they are simply fantastic

With these website more people than ever before will know more about these candidates and their experience (or lack of). It seems to me that the candidates (public relations people) have taken a page out of the myspace / youtube book in creating these websites. Most of these websites give their users the ability to customize their “own” page, find other supporters, write a blog (cough), find events, and of course contribute money.

The best feature of these websites was the videos. On Sen. Barack Obama’s website www.barackobama.com you can watch all sorts of videos about the candidate, including his momentous (some say historic) announcement from Springfield, IL last week. Sen. John McCain’s website www.exploremccain.com (he has yet to announce his candidacy) has recently amped up its appearance from a barebones website to a more content rich site including various videos and information about the Senator.

Out of all of the websites I personally liked Sen. Obama’s the best, but Sen. McCain’s was a close second. Hey, how’s this sound: McCain/Obama 08’? They would really be crossing the aisle! OK, fine I’ll stop dreaming.

"House Passes Iraq Resolution..."

The rest of the headline reads: "with 17 votes from the G.O.P." just to further drive home the notion that the New York Times is slanted to the left, just in case you didn't know. I actually love the New York Times, I am a daily subscriber. Sometimes these (not so) subtle additions to stories just make me laugh a little.

OK, the House passed an Iraq Resolution and regardless of your position on the war you must wonder what this will do. I first must applaud the 17 Republicans for actually not voting with their party. Not to say that voting with your party is bad, it just is a bit ridiculous sometimes. Oh yea, there were also 2 Democrats who voted against it (this was not in the headline). These "across the aisle" votes actually don't mean anything because if the vote was close these Representatives would have no doubt voted along their party line.

That aside, what is the purpose of this resolution? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with elections. This resolution was easily passed by way of the 32 seat Democratic majority, but unfortunately it will not do much. They are covering their backs just in case the president's troop surge strategy does not succeed and they are faced with the "why did you let this happen" question from voters in 2008. Unfortunately this resolution does nothing more than cover backs, and make a good photo op for Speaker Pelosi. President Bush isn't going to say "oh, well that's it, start the withdrawal."

I find it unlikely that the Senate will pass this or any similar resolution because of the rules of the Senate, and the near partisan split in seats. One Senator can ruin a vote, which has happened recently on a similar initiative.

If Congress wanted to stop the troop surge they would cut the funding off to the troops. I would not like to see this happen because I support our troops and everything that they do. But it is the only legitimate way that Congress can actually stop the troop surge.

Read the full article

Let's Get This Started

Welcome to my blog!

This blog will be focused on the current US political climate. With the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the tensions with North Korea and Iran, and the aftermath of the 2006 Congressional elections, people who normally don't pay any attention to politics are tuning in. This will be a time of great change, and will be history in the making. I invite you to participate with me in this time of great change.

It is my belief that politics are becoming more and more tedious and self-defeating. I don't want to sound like an anti-everything politician hater, because I am not, I am actually quite the opposite. Our politicians are great Americans that, unfortunately, sometimes are seen in the wrong light. However, I hold the opinion that in order for our government to get done what we want them and need them to get done, they have to cross the aisle and negotiate with members of the other party. Most politicians agree that certain things need to get done, but they don't get these things done because they don't want to give the other party any credit. Pressing issues such as universal health care keep getting shoved into a dark corner because nobody wants to give credit to someone else, and will eventually come back.

On Yahoo questions the other day Sen. Hillary Clinton asked what should be done about health care. When her husband was in office some 14 years ago the same question was being asked. We still can't find a solution? Canada has universal health care, why not here?

I recently saw a study that showed what percentage of Americans trust certain groups of people. Among the least trusted groups of people were members of Congress, above them were crack dealers. Why do we trust crack dealers more than the people we elect to represent us in Congress?

In this blog I will be analyzing daily news (with links to the stories) and asking for your opinions on these topics. If something comes up that needs our attention we will lobby our representatives for the necessary change. We are the people of the greatest nation on the world, and we do have a say in our country, sometimes we forget that. Let's help our representatives cross the aisle and build the country that we deserve.