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.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Friday, February 23, 2007
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:
CBSNews.com storyEnd 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.
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.
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.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
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.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
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."
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
"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.
Monday, February 19, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
President Bush with his clone
I first saw this impersonator on Jay Leno. Here is Steve Bridges alongside President Bush. Enjoy.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, February 16, 2007
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
