Political Frenzy

Yesterday Senate Republicans blocked the vote of a bill that would tax the windfall profits of oil companies as well as end their tax breaks. The Republicans said that we need to focus on more sources for oil.

Does this rub anyone else the wrong way? We are paying over $4 a gallon for gas in this country, Exxon makes billions in profit PER MONTH, we do not tax their absurd profits, and we give them $17 billion in tax breaks??? The Senate proposes a bill that would tax the windfall profits of these companies and end their billion-dollar tax breaks and elected officials have the gall to say no?

The Republicans said that raising the taxes on the oil companies will not lower the price of gas at the pump. This may be true, but wouldn’t that be the first step?

The oil companies have us by our throats, and this response by the Republicans only solidifies their grip. We need to start to shake free of these oil companies, there must eventually be a first step. Whats the worst that could happen $5 a gallon? That’s probably going to happen soon anyway!

“Besides the new levies, the bill would also have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.” Does any of this sound bad?

Taxing windfall profits of oil companies, getting rid of their tax breaks (it should be a joke that they even get tax breaks), opening the way for antitrust actions against the OPEC oil cartel, and making energy price gouging a federal crime are things that should already be the norm.

It is absolutely absurd that it costs more for a gallon of gas than some people make an hour, the companies who sell gas are making billions in profit per month, and we give them tax breaks, and the freedom to price gauge.

We have all heard our members of Congress mention the need for alternative energy, but today they blocked a bill that would give $50 billion in tax credits to renewable energy research and development.

So let me get this straight, we give Exxon tax breaks, but not the companies who create renewable energy?

I guess it does make sense; oil companies have more money to contribute to politicians than renewable energy companies do. I wonder why nothing ever gets done?

Other blogs:
http://www.radicalavenue.com/press-babble/

“Why doesn’t Congress do anything?”
“Tradition mostly” – Congressman Charlie Wilson

When I say the word ‘politician’ what do you think of? Most people would respond with ‘sleazy,’ ‘scandalous,’ or some other word that would require me to hide the children.

Much has been talked about as to how to keep our politicians from become corrupt, and to get the corrupt ones out. The problem is that the ones who need to be governed by laws are the ones who make the laws. It’s a catch-22.

One idea that gets tossed around (to make it look like they are trying to fix the problem) is term limits. In the California State Legislature members are allowed to serve a total of 14 years between the two houses. 8 years as a State Senator and 6 as a member of the Assembly. Recently the leadership (who all just so happened to stand to be termed out at the end of their current terms) introduced Proposition 93.

Like most of politics there has been nothing but confusion surrounding Prop 93, which California voters defeated on Super Tuesday. This 53% opposed proposition was marketed using a successful tactic of confusion. Voters were unsure if it eliminated term limits, shortened term limits, increased speed limits, or who even supported it.

All that Prop 93 would have done was shortened the total amount of years to 12 years of service, but it would allow a person to serve all twelve years in the same house.

Prop 93’s support was also confusing. At one point the Governor didn’t support it, but then suddenly endorsed it. Some say he realized that 3 or the 4 leaders in the State Legislature would become ‘lame ducks’ if the proposition didn’t pass and would make it impossible for the Governor to advance his agenda.

Prop 93 was a good idea, but term limits are only a mere band-aid on the malignant issue. The issue should not be how long politicians should serve; it should be about us finally holding them accountable to their service. Let’s say that Speaker Nunez was using special interest money to go on Luis Vuitton shopping sprees in Paris as the anti-Prop 93 commercials touted, then why do his term limits matter? If he is using money other than his own to live his ‘opulent lifestyle’ he shouldn’t be re-elected even if he was eligible.

Every voter is afraid of politicians who are in bed with special interest groups, the ones who don’t pay attention to us anymore. We all see that some of our U.S. Congressmen and women are corrupt; we see Jack Abramoff in FBI custody, our Representatives homes being raided, and Senators asking for “favors” in airport bathrooms.

Congress’ overall approval rating is historically below 30% every year, and was as low as 11% in 2007. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll last September asked, “Overall, how much do you think Congress has accomplished this year: a great deal, a good amount, not too much, or nothing at all?” 2% answered “A great deal,” 14%, “A good amount,” and 65% said “Not too much.”

We don’t trust out members of Congress, but we consistently re-elect them at rates over 95%.

The fact that these people spend millions of dollars running for a job that pays around $160,000 a year should be cause to throw a penalty flag. They do it because they get away with anything, they always have. If you give a mouse a cookie…

Look at Congressman John Doolittle, he has been under investigation by the FBI for years now, and he has been re-elected 8 times! While his colleagues were being thrown in jail he was out being re-elected. Are we nuts!? People he works with are being thrown in jail and we just say ‘ok, but you aren’t doing that stuff right? Ok we’ll re-elect you.’ Doolittle finally had to announce that he wouldn’t run for re-election in 2008. (District 4 rejoice, you don’t have to re-elect him again!). I suppose the FBI raids on his homes made him wonder if he stood a chance in November, nah he would have been re-elected.

Unfortunately voters have become mindless lemmings when it comes to elections. Just because someone was elected does not mean that they have to be re-elected! If we paid attention to what our politicians were doing and held them accountable for their actions term limits would be unnecessary. The fact that we have term limits in California shows that we don’t trust ourselves to hold our elected officials accountable.

With the way we don’t pay attention to what our politicians do they would get away with murder, and no I won’t make a Ted Kennedy reference here.

Today Senator McCain attacked Senator Obama on public election financing. McCain’s camp said that last spring Obama’s campaign said Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly-financed general election.”

Campaigns that are publicly financed means that each campaign would receive around $85 million from a taxpayer financed fund. But if they accept it they are not allowed to raise money elsewhere.

McCain said that Obama should “keep his word to the American people.”

First of all, Obama isn’t the nominee yet, and neither is McCain. So let’s not count the chickens before they hatch (even though on the Republican egg I can see the beak). Secondly an attack on Obama is good news for Barack’s campaign because that shows that the Republicans are already counting on him winning the nomination.

The thing that I don’t like about this type of attack is that Obama has said nothing about using public financing during the general election. By McCain challenging something Obama has said nothing about it makes it look like Obama has already said he won’t use public financing. Ahhh classic politics.

Let’s be honest here, the only reason McCain has brought this up is because he knows he doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell at raising even half the money Obama would. In January Obama raised over $32 million dollars, mostly from small donations. When looking at cash each campaign has on hand, it is not surprise. Obama has over $18 million while McCain has just about $3 million.

If the candidates agreed to both use public financing it would take away a huge advantage from Obama. When his campaign made that comment last spring I’m sure they didn’t realize that they would become a money machine in 2008.

If Obama does receive the nomination he has a huge decision to make. Should he reject his proposal of using public financing and dominate McCain with his millions. Or should he stick to his word and have a level playing field with McCain?

The smart thing for him to do would be to reject the public financing and take the wrath that comes with a flip-flop. McCain won’t have much money to get the message out that Obama flip-flopped in the first place.

After the onslaught of victories on Super Tuesday by John McCain (and the surprise…again…of Huckabee’s victories) it appears that it is mathematically impossible for Mitt Romney to catch up in the delegate race. The McCain campaign released this:

“The remaining contests account for roughly 963 delegates. For Mitt Romney to match our delegate count, he would have to win more than 50 percent of those delegates. And, he would have to win nearly every single delegate still available in order to become the nominee. And, many of these contests are proportional, so Mitt will have to win by big margins in many states to garner every last delegate. For example, in this weekend’s Louisiana primary, he would have to win the with more than 50 percent of the vote in order to win (1191 delegates to win, 963+236=1,199). ”

Even if Huckabee wasn’t in the race taking up Romney votes it would be an impossible task for Romney to catch up. So congratulations Senator McCain and good luck against the Democrats (your gonna need it)!

I have been wondering how Romney stuck around this long, he didn’t seem like a viable candidate to me a few months ago. When looking at his “fundraising” it seems that he has been buying his way to his 2nd place finish.

According to opensecrets.org Mr. Romney has “raised” over $88,000,000, twice as much as Senator McCain’s $41,000,000. We all know that Romney is wealthy beyond belief and has largely self-financing his campaign (giving himself over $35,000,000), but was this a good investment?

I find it humorous at the amount Huckabee has raised in relation to his impact, though January he raised a mere $8,900,000. Romney has spent over $80,000,000 more than Huckabee and it is still a battle between the two!

When looking at the campaign debts category Romney’s number is alarming, he has $35,000,000 in campaign debts! McCain has just over $4,500,000, and Huckabee $97,000. $35 million where does that go? When he loses does he have to pay that himself? What a horrible use of money. He probably could have cured some disease, or saved Darfur with that! The problem is that almost every candidate wishes they had that kind of money!

I want candidates who are so in tune with the needs of the country and can resonate their vision with the people so effectively that they get enough support from the voters. Financing your own campaign is like paying for a hot prom date.

As most people know Stephen Colbert has announced that he will run for president…in South Carolina. He is attempting to get on the ballot in South Carolina as a Democrat and a Republican.

“Man of the Year” for real? No, he is only running in one state.

While the tone of his ‘candidacy’ is humorous at best, other candidates have actually responded to it. Colbert says he is the favorite son of South Carolina, and Doritos will sponsor his candidacy.

This is a joke, but it didn’t stop the John Edwards campaign from ‘firing back.’ “What is more troubling than his quest for a status his own mother won’t grant him (favorite son) are his ties to the salty food industry,” Wells said. “As the candidate of Doritos, his hands are stained by corporate corruption and nacho cheese. John Edwards has never taken a dime from taco chip lobbyists and America deserves a President who isn’t in the pocket of the snack food special interests.”

Are they joking? It is hard to tell.

Colbert has an enormous fan base and is wildly popular with the college crowd, I watch “The Report.”

Something like this has never been done before. It will be interesting to see if his one state candidacy actually makes real candidates keep responding to things that he does.

Source: AP

President Bush feels the rumble…Wednesday in a press conference he discussed Russian President Vladamir Putin’s new friendship with Iran. President Bush went onto say that Iran would be raising the risks of “World War II.” Wait…isn’t that what I said on Tuesday??

According to the most recent Zogby Poll, President Bush’s approval rating is at an all time low, a sickening 24%. The talk of invading Iran while our troops are stuck in quagmires all over Iraq may have something to do with this number! Not to mention that fact that there are countless presidential candidates talking about how they would make the country better. When this is going on it seems to discredit the current president, even though he did the same thing when he was campaigning.

W. is not alone, in the same Zogby Poll the approval rating of Congress is at an all time low of 11%! Eleven percent? Yea, I had to spell it out. That is just stupid! Congressional approval ratings have been low since the beginning of polling, but eleven percent?

If we as voters do not trust the people we elect then why do we ALWAYS elect the same type of candidates?

Go look up the definition of insanity…exactly.

Sources:
John Whitesides, Reuters
Brian Knowlton, The New York Times

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

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, feeling heat from every corner of the political world, resigned today. Democrats were very happy saying that they have been calling for his resignation for months.

Gonzales is blamed for approving illegal wiretapping of Americans, the firing of US Attorneys, and approving torture on enemy combatants (among other things). President Bush said that Gonzales was being “dragged through mud for political reasons.”

It is very easy for any Attorney General to be criticized because the job, much like the presidency, entails making decisions that are so tough that they are brought up the ladder to him. When a decision reaches this place in the political system whatever decision is made is bound to make one group of people mad, and the other happy.

We never hear from the group of people who are happy, it doesn’t sell newspapers.

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.

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.

As you know Karl Rove, “The Evil Genius,” is leaving the White House… who cares? He is a (sneaky, malicious, detestable) political strategist, there are not more elections for W to win so why is this news?

On The Washington Post’s website there is a slideshow of good ol’ Karl highlighting his 14+ years as a Bush family aide. There are pictures of him (like 200 pounds lighter) at W’s side in 1999, pictures of him getting off an airplane carrying his baggage, pictures of him gazing at W, it’s like he died!

Most people dislike (hate) Karl Rove including presidential candidate Sen. Obama who said today, “Karl Rove was an architect of a political strategy that has left the country more divided, the special interests more powerful, and the American people more shut out from their government than any time in memory.” So why is this treated like a funeral?

Rove is making time to write a book (that will make him millions), I do not feel sorry for him. At these times (such as when Paris Hilton went to jail) I wonder why the news media makes us focus on such meaningless events. Sure it’s a slow news day (hence, I’m writing about Karl Rove) but can’t we focus on something else?

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.

President Bush (remember him?) met with the President of Afghanistan today. They debated the conditions in Afghanistan and the role of Iran in the current wars.

President Bush is playing defense (just like our troops) on these issues. When the US invaded Afghanistan is seemed that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were defeated and Osama would be captured. Fast-forward 6 years, the Taliban has rebuilt and Osama is wasting perfectly good oxygen in some dark cave (what a hero). On top of that we have an unstable Iraq, and a hostile nation, Iran, building nuclear weapons. Are we back at square one?

No, we are back at square -5.

Karzai, the Afghani President, says that Iran has played a “helpful role” in Afghanistan. Considering that Iran is providing the IEDs that are killing our troops daily in Iraq, I would say that Iran is being “less than helpful.”

President Bush said, it was up to Iran ‘to prove it is not a “destabilizing force” in the region.’ I agree with this, Iran is secretive and blatantly hostile towards the US. Iran needs to show that it is being helpful, and President Bush needs to find out why President Karzai thinks that Iran is.

It is always nice to know if you are in bed with the enemy.