Political Frenzy

According to the morning Stratfor morning intelligence brief Cuban (do I call him president?) Fidel Castro was shown today in a recorded interview on Cuban television. To dispel rumors that he is dead he held a copy (like a hostage) of US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s new book.

Why does it matter if Castro is still clinging onto life, the government there is not legitimate. I’m surprised that the Cuban people allowed Castro to pass on power to anybody. Castro seized power of Cuba through revolution and typically the people will eventually overthrow that ‘government’ when the ‘leader’ can’t rule anymore.

Life in Cuba is not great right now. It is so bad that their people actually risk their lives daily by getting into black inner tubes and drift their way through shark infested waters to Florida. I always got a kick out of the law that says something like if they make it to our shores we can’t deport them. What a smack in Castro’s face!

In the next few years there will most likely be an overthrow in Cuba and the US will have to make some decisions. Our next president will have to decide whether to help Cuba out and have a strong relationship with the little island or to keep things the way they are.

Personally I hope the US befriends post-Castro Cuba. It would be nice to see the people there driving cars that were made after 1950. It would also be nice to go on vacation there!

Bill, sorry, Hillary Clinton has joined the ranks of candidates who are actually trying (appearing) to want to do something! She has announced her plan for “universal” healthcare. On her website you can download her plan in a pdf file.

She must have read how much I love pdf files!!

I’m pretty sure that this is the first time that I have said something positive about Hillary. I’m not agreeing with the plan, I’m just happy that she has come up with one (in a pdf). The other candidates who have no plans are a waste of time.

Fred Thompson was quick to criticize “HillaryCare” on a video on his website Fred08.com. Thompson, ever the advocate for the small government, showed his frustration in the video which was filmed in the back of a moving car. Thompson said that he does not agree with Hillary’s principles, especially the part of her plan in which employers being required to check if new applicants have healthcare.

Ehh, ok that does make sense. Employers do provide employees with healthcare, so why are they required to have it when applying for a job?

Chicken or the egg?

Universal healthcare has been the Bain of politician’s existence for years now. They mostly agree that our healthcare system needs reform, but don’t seem able to get past the dreaded drug companies and their lobbyists.

Will the BILLary plan work? I don’t know, but at least s/he has proposed one. It is mostly smoke and mirrors but how many Republicans have released a healthcare plan?

As I was checking out the presidential candidates stances on abortion today I asked myself ‘why?’

Abortion is the single most divisive issue in existence today. I saw a study once that said something like over 99% of people have an opinion on it. There is no other issue that anywhere near 99% of people have an opinion on. My question to you is: does a candidate’s stance on abortion affect your vote? If so, why?

Back in “simpler times” when there were no significant wars or acts of terrorism running rampid throughout the globe it seemed that abortion was the #1 issue.

For two reasons in this next election abortion will be close to a non-issue.

First: People only care about things that affect them. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the possibility of other wars and random acts of terrorism make us feel much more insecure than someone getting an abortion. Terrorists can come and kill us at any time, someone’s abortion cannot. It’s that simple.

Second: What can the president actually do? I personally don’t support abortion, but I would support a candidate who supports abortion. Ahhhh, I can hear you all screaming from here…calm down. Think about it, President Bush is as anti-abortion and conservative as they come, and he has appointed 3 Supreme Court justices during his administration. That sounds like a recipe for change, but abortion is still legal.

Another example of how much of a non-issue this has become is Republican presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani, who announced that he supports abortion before the primary election. In past years that would have been a political death sentence! Only conservatives vote in the Republican primary! But Guiliani remains on the top of the Republican polls. I highly doubt that he will drum up support from the very conservative voters who vote in the primaries. But the fact that he said that before the primary speaks volumes of how much this issue has changed.

People’s opinions on abortion will always be decisive and consistent, but Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.

Fred Thompson (seen above with his wife Jeri) has officially declared his candidacy for president, about time. He joins the race “late” with tons of support from the right.

Thompson says he will promote, “limited government, an aggressive foreign policy and lower taxes — and promised a commitment to securing the borders and appointing conservative judges.”

Excuse me for not giving Thompson a ’standing O.’

Not to say that some (2) of the Democratic candidates are actually promoting change more so than any Republican, but give me a break. In a campaign promise he says he will ‘appoint conservative judges?’ Oh boy, that will change everything!

Not to sound like one of those lefties, but issues such as our soldiers dying in Iraq without clear objectives and millions of uninsured Americans unable to get life saving surgeries are a bit more important to me than appointing conservative judges!!!

I understand that he is aiming at getting the Republican nomination, and to do so you have to say things that make you look like you are teetering on the edge of the right, because only hard core Republicans will be voting in the primary. But he will have to bring his promises back to the middle if he wants to win over swing voters in the general election. However, in his speech he criticized other candidates who have flip-flopped their positions.

He is setting himself up to fail.

I don’t want a president who only caters to one ideology, and neither should you. We have seen what can happen. A president has to make tough choices for the greater good, not the greater right edge (or left edge). There are far more Americans who are in the middle than who are on either side.

The only ones who are on the two extremes are the people we elect to ‘represent’ us.

Sources: WashingtonPost.com

In this week’s presidential polls a familiar yet-unfamiliar face has taken up the number three position in the democratic race: Al Gore.

First in the poll is Hillary Clinton with (an I hope we don’t really vote like this) 35%, second is Senator Obama with 23%, and Al Gore who hasn’t even mentioned that he would be willing to run for president pulled in the third spot with 10%. John Edwards is next with 6%.

The only way Al Gore will not be elected president is if he doesn’t run.

All of these candidates are running full scale campaigns and the name Gore is beating nearly all of them. For a person to consistently pull in such high poll numbers without even being a candidate is incredible. And I’m not talking a Fred Thompson “I’m not a candidate,” because clear Mr. Thompson IS a candidate. Al Gore is NOT a candidate.

Gore is waiting for everyone else to attack each other and spend all of their money. At a time when we are all sick of the names we have been hearing over and over for the past year, Gore will swoop in as the savior and announce that he is running for president. As we all know Gore won the popular vote in 2000, at a time when his name was tarnished by the Clinton scandals. Can you imagine how much support he would have today?

Let’s be honest, presidential campaigns are popularity contests. It is sad but we as citizens do not know enough about government to make truly informed electoral decisions. Al Gore is as popular as any politician can be. He is the face of the global warming movement, he represents change, and will capitalize on the ‘if I were elected’ aspect of the Bush presidency. Not to mention he will have all sorts of celebrities coming out to support him, which will drive even more people to vote.

The best candidates are the ones who don’t want to run.

Recently the issue of health care has been at the top of the agendas of the media and presidential candidates. So let’s roll with it.

An editorial in the New York Times today, “Bleak Findings on Health Insurance,” discussed how there are over 47 million Americans without health insurance. This is a terrible number because each of these people are one health problem away from being ruined financially, which means our taxes WILL go up. Somebody has to pay their bills.

In my home state, California, there is a heated debate between Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature on what to do about the health care crisis (I like how when people pay attention to it it becomes a crisis, even though the numbers have been the same for years). California has the opportunity to set the example for the rest of the country, let’s hope we do so.

However the big crisis is not that of health care, it is of politics.

The only reason that our nation does not have truly universal health care is because of partisan bickering. Canada has universal health care; there is no reason that we cannot! The only thing that politicians care about is who gets the credit for coming up with the plan.

It is ridiculous.

Here is a video from John Edwards’ presidential campaign in which he discusses health care. I am not supporting any candidates yet, but this video has some strong points:

This topic of experience has struck a chord with readers. Many of you have different views on what type of experience a president needs in order to be qualified for the job. Many have some valid points.

In an email one reader told me that foreign policy experience is a must for a would-be president. It is hard to disagree with this, it seems that when a president is criticized it is usually over foreign policy mistakes (cough, cough). When looking at the current candidates I see some very thin foreign policy experience.

Rudy Giuliani, who for some reason I want to like but I don’t, seems to act like he has foreign policy experience. It a recent magazine article Giuliani discussed how he would ‘deal with Iran,’ which seems a bit naive. Here is a guy who was a lawyer and a Mayor trying to say how he would deal with a hostile foreign nation. It is like a basketball player giving directions on how to perform open heart surgery.

I don’t like this, if Giuliani wants to give advice on how to deal with a trash strike I’m all ears. But when he discusses how the U.S. can deal with Iran, “…by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran’s military…,” I wonder where he gets his information.

It just sounds like he is regurgitating information from his aides. As a Mayor I can guarantee you that he never dealt with Iran. Don’t get me wrong Giuliani was a great Mayor. But being a Mayor, whether it is of New York City or of Smallville, does not qualify someone to be president. There are simply too many areas that a president deals with that are in foreign territory for a Mayor.

There seems to be a debate brewing about the experience of Barack Obama. His fellow contenders (basically only Clinton, who loves to attack) say that he does not have the experience to be president.

What qualifies as experience to be president?

Our history says the answer is: over 40 years old, white male, former Governor.

Most people would agree with me that the 2008 election is going to be different. There is a very good chance that a woman or a non-white man will be president. The American people are in need of leadership; we are in need of change.

Article II, section 1 of our Constitution states the only real qualifications to be president: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The Founders made these qualifications very vague for a reason. They want the voters to decide what qualifies someone to be our president.

Now the question is do we want our next president, the person who will bring change and raise America’s stature in the world again, to be a person with fresh ideas, or do we want a “Washington Insider?”

What is the definition of insanity again?

On Fred Thompson’s stealthy “I’m not running for President” website he has posted a riveting video about Federalism. In his 5-minute history teacher (lull me to sleep) lecture he actually makes some interesting points. With this video Thompson has become the only Republican candidate (sorry Fred, you ARE a candidate) that is promoting something different.

At the risk of you falling asleep at the keyboard (and losing all my readers) here is the video…

Thompson plans to ’shake things up’ when he finally announces his candidacy. He will be heavily discussing issues such as government accountability, tax cuts, entitlements…. you still awake?

Although I like that he is discussing relevant issues that no other candidates want to talk about (because we will turn the channel), it makes me wonder if his message will even get out.

It is sad, but in our nanosecond YouTube culture we feel the need to be constantly entertained. Most of the 2008 campaigns have realized this, will Thompson’s?

The fact remains that these issues are important, but in our minds they are nowhere near as important as issues such as Iraq, health care, and immigration. On these issues I have yet to see a specific plan from a Republican candidate.

I would love to see one.

Today John Edwards, seeking to capitalize on his YearlyKos moment, asked Senator Barack Obama to co-sign a letter to Democratic leaders to ban the acceptance of funds from Federal Lobbyists. Both men have policies, unlike Mrs. Clinton, to never accept money from Federal Lobbyists.

Obama declined the Edwards “invitation,” his campaign stated, “It’s not enough just to refuse their money, we have to curb their influence.” In other words… ‘Damn, I should have asked HIM first!’

It is a great idea to ban money from Federal Lobbyists, most Democrats (who want to get re-elected) would agree. The problem is that it will never happen…ever. The concept is not the problem; the problem is that members of Congress hate to give credit to someone else for a good idea.

Instead of admitting that another member’s idea is good, they will re-word it and say that the proposal is not enough, that the author did not think of all the angles.

This is the main problem with Congress today, nobody wants to give anyone else credit for a good idea, and one party will never (ever) give the other credit for a good idea. It is a perfect formula for getting nothing done.

Did you hear that sound? I think it was Thomas Jefferson rolling over…

Senator Barack Obama said in an interview yesterday that he can unite U.S. “More Effectively” than Clinton…so could a 7-year-old girl!

I definitely agree with Obama that he can unite the U.S. better than Clinton, but that isn’t saying much. Hillary Clinton is as polarizing a candidate we have seen in a long time. Her demeanor and tone of voice are of someone who thinks they are better than everyone, of someone who doesn’t listen. Her issue stances are flimsy, and her promises empty. Not to mention her biggest achievement, her husband’s presidency, is tainted. Does she think that we have forgotten that Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED?

Bill Clinton’s presidency looks like a shining beacon of hope right now because of the disasters that are unfolding under George Bush! It was a different time then, and if the Clintons had better foresight we would not have been attacked on 9/11.

She actually feels that she is qualified to be president, that she has ‘been there and done that.’

The debate over the new president meeting with heads of state from hostile nations displays Hillary’s attitude and stale 1993 thinking. Obama said that he would meet with these leaders without preconditions because “…setting preconditions for discussions would imply that the US is the superior power and other states have to give into our demands before we even meet with them…that reinforces the sense of the arrogance of US power around the world, which is a source of great damage — and makes us less safe.”

Of this new take on diplomacy Clinton called Obama, “irresponsible and frankly naive.” Does that make you grit your teeth also?

If you have done any looking into the issue positions of the myriad of presidential candidates you will be disappointed, there is nothing of substance there, with two exceptions.

Candidates are very reluctant to offer specific plans on their views, which is why so many candidates are shying away from the YouTube debate. They are afraid to face specific questions. They like the broad questions that are (underhand) tossed to them at traditional debates in which they can dance (the cha-cha) around specifics while offering a flimsy view.

Why should we vote for someone when they provide no plans for change? Because we like their smile?

The two exceptions to this are Barack Obama and John Edwards. On their websites (by far the best of all the candidates) they have actual pdf documents with specific plans on the tough issues. To be honest I never really paid much attention to Edwards, but after reading his SPECIFIC plans I was impressed.

On the other candidates websites all you will find are carefully orchestrated essays that skirt solutions to the major issues. It takes guts and confidence to post pdf files with specific plans…props to John and Barack.

At the YearlyKos convention this past weekend the Democratic candidates were asked questions about accepting money from Washington lobbyists.

John Edwards is very passionate about not taking any money from federal lobbyists. Edwards went on to say, …The Democratic party should say from this day forward “we will never take a dime from a Washington lobbyist, we do not do business with these insiders, we’re gonna give the power in this government back to the people.” He added that Senator Obama and he had already made that pledge.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has not. She said that she does take money from Washington lobbyists and will continue to do so. In her cocky style (that I can’t stand) she talked about how in her “35 years of fighting for what she believes in” she has never been influenced by a Washington lobbyist.

If that is the case, then why meet with them and take their money? If they have never convinced her of anything why would she waste her precious time on meeting with them? She should be spending time on meeting with people who educate her to make smart decisions, not with people who have never contributed to her policies.

Why would someone continuously meet with people who contribute nothing to their cause?

The “35 years of fighting for what she believes in” also seems a bit odd. What has she done in those 35 years? Look at her bio…small lawyer, wife of Governor, wife of impeached President, Senator. She is not qualified to be our president. All other candidates at least have a track record that they built themselves.

Clinton went on to say that real Americans are represented by Washington lobbyists, to which Sen. Obama replied by asking the crowd how many of them were represented by a Washington lobbyists…one hand went up.

At an “Ask Mitt Anything” forum today a woman asked presidential candidate Mitt Romney of his 5 sons, “If none of them are (in the military), how do they plan to support this war on terrorism by enlisting in our U.S. military?”

First of all this question is horribly phrased and backs Romney into a corner. But like a true politician he waltzed his way out by discussing how his niece’s husband, who is in the National Guard, was called up, how his sons chose different career paths and are supporting the military by campaigning for him to be president.

It is a dumb question, but I feel that it needs to be addressed. Must someone be enlisted (or an officer) in the military to be a supporter? What do you think?

The notion that you must be IN the military to be a supporter, is ridiculous. I support the military with all my heart, but I’m not heading off to basic training any time soon. However, if we ever have a draft I will be the first guy at MEPS with my head shaved. The United States is the greatest nation on earth because of sacrifices Americans have made while serving in the military. We would be nowhere without them today.

Military service is not for everybody, just like all careers. Some of the most successful people I know are in the military, but it is not for everybody. To support your country in a time of war you should be doing the things that you are best at, not what someone else is best at. The guy who makes M-16s might not be the best to shoot them, and vice versa.

It is naive for someone to think that to support the military you must be in it, and it is even stupider to try to trap a professional politician by asking such pointed questions.

Source: BarackObama.com

Barack Obama’s views on the use of military have been making headlines lately. He made a comment about how, as president there would be no use of nuclear weapons…on civilian targets. Which was criticized by the other candidates including John Edwards who said, “A candidate for president should, in general, avoid talking about the potential use of nuclear weapons.”

Now other campaigns are giving campaign advice?

Obama then made a comment about attacking al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, which caused everyone within a 10,000-mile radius to try to spin it to harm his campaign…ahh yes good old politics.

Obama’s comments also caused President Bush to call the President of Pakistan and discuss how the comments, “were unsavory and often prompted by political considerations in an environment of electioneering.” A presidential candidate has that much pull? I’m impressed.

The Obama campaign has been ratcheting up its display of a ‘tough’ Obama who will fight terrorism. An update email to supporters displayed the image above of an angry Obama and talked about the pressing need to deal with Taliban and al Qaeda and how the Bush Administration missed its chance to take them out. All other update emails have been about ending war, then highlighting his views on domestic issues…there must have been a poll that suggested he would gain points if he took a tough terrorism stance.

I like the move because every other Democratic candidate is preaching the same things. Obama realizes that he must beat the other candidates to get the nomination, to do so he must separate himself from them.

It is good to see the anti-war candidate talking about something other than a pullout. A pullout will only cause the strife in the Middle East to fester.