Political Frenzy

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.

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.

A recent NYT/ABC poll shows that 50% of Americans believe someone who is not a Republican or Democrat can govern effectively. The number has steadily increased over the years and is highest among young voters.

Is this poll backwards? There seems to be more evidence that suggests members of these parties cannot govern effectively. With the public’s growing dissatisfaction with our elected officials and younger politicians seeking office there will soon be an independent wave throughout our political system.

Parties have too much control over what our ‘elected’ officials do. This past week’s Cirque de Congress is a great example of this. Amidst the political stunts being played and the overwhelming disatisfaction among constituents, members voted with their party no matter what.

Isn’t our government supposed to be a representative one? With elected officials voting how they believe, and in turn, how their constituents believe? The mindless sheep manner in which Congress votes now-a-days suggests that there are only two constituents, Democrats and Republicans.

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican it is hard to find supporting evidence that the way Congress votes makes any sense, only ‘re-elect me, poll-tested, political sense.’ However, the voices of progressive voters are starting to be heard.

Progressive thought is not new. In 1912 former president Theodore Roosevelt was shot in the chest moments before he was to give a speech as a progressive candidate for president. After declining to go to the hospital and with blood seeping through his white shirt he stepped up to the podium and exclaimed, “I have altogether too important things to think of to feel any concern over my own death…This effort to assassinate me emphasizes to a peculiar degree the need for the Progressive movement…every good citizen ought to do everything in his or her power to prevent the coming of the day when we shall see in this country two recognized creeds fighting one another…”

Teddy’s words still echo, and will eventually be heard.

Senate Democrats continued the circus of making it appear that they want to end the war in Iraq. Last night amidst orchestrated photo ops of rolling out cots, and cold pizza Senate majority leader Harry Reid hosted an all night debate to block the Republican filibuster on an amendment to the defense bill.

The amendment would set a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq, it fell 8 votes short or the necessary 60.

Numerous Senators took the podium and spoke for or against the amendment, or about nothing at all. Other Senators accused Reid of “playing politics.”

I would have to agree. According to a Capitol Police Officer, the rolling out of cots and pizza was simply a “photo op.”

Even if the vote succeeded what happens next? VETO…they need to figure out another way to solve this!

Senator McCain seemed to speak off sript when saying, “Nothing we have done for the last 24 hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq,” McCain said. “No battle will have been won or lost. No enemy will have been captured or killed. No ground will have been taken or surrendered. No soldier will have survived or been wounded or died or come home because we spent a whole night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning out sound bites or arguing with each other and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship.”

Well put Senator.

The campaign fundraising numbers are in for this quarter. Overall, as typically happens, the candidates raised more than ever before.

The Democrats rose far more than the Republicans, which seems to be the new trend. The overall leader for last quarter was Sen. Obama, who raised $32.8 million, and has $34.5 million in the bank. Sen. Clinton raised $28 million, and has $32.6 million in the bank. The leader for Republicans was Rudy Giuliani with $17.3 million.

The new trend among candidates is to raise a lot, and spend a little. There are very few candidates in the red, and a few nearing it.

While Clinton and Obama are rolling around in cash the McCain troubles continue. The Senator says that he “values his marriage to much” to use family funds for his campaign. Mitt Romney, dipped into his personal fortune (valued in the hundreds of millions) lending $9 million to his own campaign.

Rep. Ron Paul has more cash on hand than Sen. John McCain. McCain has only $1.9 million available, while Paul has $2.4 million. According to the New York Times, nearly half of Paul’s money came in donations of less than $200, that is a lot of donors. I still scratch my head when thinking about his performance on The Colbert Report, is this guy really running for president?

Where does all this money go? That’s a good question, and a hard one to answer. A lot of money is spent on travel. Obama spent $2 million alone traversing the country in private jets last quarter.

In this popularity contest, cash is king. It seems that Clinton and Obama will be dueling down to the last hanging chad, and then join forces when one of them is nominated.

It is harder to predict the Republican nominee. I still don’t see a nominee for president whose highest elected office is mayor. The last president whose highest office wasn’t Governor or Vice President was Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960.

But the times are changing… aren’t they?

On the web: Democrats Continue to Beat Republicans at the Donor Box

Senator Clinton plans to introduce an amendment repealing the Congressional authorization for the war; it would require President Bush to seek Congressional authorization to extend the war past October 11, 2007.

One word: VETO

Why would President Bush even consider signing this? He seems hell bent on staying in Iraq, and will veto anything that comes within a 5-mile radius of his desk that has to do with pulling out of Iraq. Congress has tried the timetables and it didn’t work. They tried the timetables again, didn’t work. They are currently trying the timetables again (sneak preview…didn’t work).

Now Senator Clinton is trying to slip this in as if the president and will not realize it’s there and accidentally sign it. This isn’t a mortage application! Sorry Hillary, he WILL see it.

Barack Obama has even said that Clinton’s approach is ”a convoluted approach to the problem.” Obama went on to reiterate that he was against the war from the start and if elected he would meet with military leaders to determine an exit strategy.

Obama also said the he believes the U.S. has a ”humanitarian obligation and national security interest in ensuring there’s not a complete collapse in Iraq.”

This is the first time I have heard an anti-war candidate say something about Iraq other than PULL OUT. Obama realizes that our troops are currently needed in Iraq, he (like most people now) just disagrees with the reason why we invaded in 2003.

If we only had a crystal ball.

Today the House passed a bill that would require that our combat troops withdrawal from Iraq by April 1, 2008. It is said that the House passed this to pressure the Senate to attach similar restrictions to the military policy bill they are deliberating….then what?

President Bush will veto this bill while still in the hands of the messenger boy.

This is the third bill passed this year that has to do with time tables and troop withdrawals. Drafting and passing bills takes a lot of time and effort. Why would Congress keep passing the same bill over and over, it is a waste of time. Mr. Bush has vetoed it, and will continue to veto it. How about they spend their time on passing bills that will actually cause change?

It is obvious that the public is fed up with how President Bush is handling the Iraq war. When Congress members go back home they want to be able to tell their constituents that they ‘tried.’ Where in reality they didn’t. Isn’t the definition of insanity ‘doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result?’

By Congress passing this bill it make makes it obvious to me that they have no idea how to end the war.

Today GOP Senators blocked an Amendment that would allow our troops to actually have breaks between tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Amendment, sponsored by Senator Webb, a Vietnam veteran who wore his son’s combat boots during his entire campaign, fell 4 votes shy of being voted on, you read that correctly. They had a vote to vote, very productive. As much as I love Congress sometimes they just makes me shake my head and say ‘what?’

The Amendment states, “No unit or member of the Armed Forces…be redeployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom unless the period between the deployment…is equal to or longer than the period of such previous deployment.”

The Amendment was supported by the Military Officers Association of America saying in a letter to Senator Jim Webb, “MOAA is very concerned that steps must be taken to protect our most precious military asset – the all-volunteer force – from having to bear such a disproportionate share of national wartime sacrifice.”

Seven Republicans voted for the Amendment, six of which are up for re-election in 2008… big surprise.

An editorial in the Army Times discussed how the current deployment strategy doesn’t work. “It means more mental health problems for soldiers, more stress on families and less support for the mission at home….This is a bad policy.” Longer tours, they discuss, threaten the very strength of the Army. It was found that, “…mental health issues increase in direct relation to the length and frequency of deployments and the amount of combat experience soldiers endure.” The Army Times realized that the Amendment would not pass but said it “would force a debate on how to answer the call in Iraq without destroying the Army in the process.”

The current re-deployment policy states that soldiers may have 12 months at home for every 15 months in a war zone. This is not true. I have friends who are currently in war zones in the Middle East. I can guarantee you that after their 15 month tours they got nowhere close to 12 months at home before they were sent back to the sand.

I always like to see Senators voting against their party, it shows that they are thinking for themselves. Re-evaluating the redeployment policy is a great idea. Our soldiers are needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we cannot overuse them.

With news of poor fundraising, and the departure of key staff members John McCain’s presidential hopes seem to be in trouble. Today it was announced that John Weaver, McCain’s right hand man, and the architect behind the “Straight Talk Express” has left the Senator’s side.

McCain is now trailing Giuliani and Thompson in the polls, and many are predicting the end of the McCain campaign. Like other elections, it seems that this has become a popularity contest, with the newest and most exciting people garnering the most support. There is a feeling that whomever is elected next year will shatter the mold of middle-aged white man presidents.

Most people feel that McCain is too much aligned with “Mr. 30%” President Bush. With GOP Senators now pulling away from the president’s vision of how to finish the war in Iraq, McCain’s views are looking stale. This does not mean that he isn’t a good candidate. I think he is a great candidate, and have much respect for him. He is, after all, a true war hero and is most qualified out of all candidates to be our president.

If McCain’s presidential hopes were dashed I would assume that he would be tapped to run on the ticket with the Republican nominee. He would make a great Vice President, and would be an extremely strong running mate. I would like to see Mayor Bloomberg and McCain join forces and shake things up. But I would also like to see an Obama/McCain ticket…I’ll keep dreaming.

It is still premature to be making predictions, but before voting day rolls around the polls will look completely different than they do today.

“War Mom” Cindy Sheehan, who retired from the peace movement in May, has ‘threatened’ to run against Speaker Nancy Pelosi if Pelosi doesn’t file articles of impeachment against President Bush by July 23rd.

Sheehan feels betrayed by Democratic leadership saying, “We hired them to bring an end to the war.” and is encouraging others to “run against Congress members who aren’t doing their jobs, and are beholden to special interests.”

I respect that Sheehan is challenging the system but maybe she doesn’t realize that even if she found a way to run a campaign with no money it would just force the Speaker to go even further into debt with special interests. It is just the sad truth about our politics today.

Since the death of her son in Iraq Sheehan has had a bone to pick with President Bush, and now she is calling out Congress…she should take a number. Historically it is very rare if the public as a whole is satisfied with the presidency or Congress.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, Congress is listed as the least trusted in a list of 16 prominent institutions. The most trusted was the military with 69% of people having a high level of trust; the presidency garnered 25%, Congress checked in with an abysmal 14%. Lower than both big business and HMOs.

This Congress is now facing criticism for not getting much done. According to a recent CBS News poll 59% of people think that this Congress has accomplished less than previous Congresses did in their first 6 months. It is sad that a do-nothing Congress is expected when two parties are in power.

Congress isn’t the only one taking heat; President Bush is now seeing his Iraq surge plan being abandoned in the Senate. Congress members are facing pressure to pass a bill forcing a major change in Iraq policy before their August recess when they will have to “face constituents.” It seems a bit odd that they only want to get things done when they have to face their constituents, and we wonder why nobody trusts them.

Maybe President Bush should encourage the articles of impeachment; it did wonders for President Clinton’s approval ratings!

So before I thought “Mitt Romney - Massachusetts conservative. Executive experience, okay, fair enough, sounds like an alright dude.”

WRONG.

I was wrong. I admit it. Mitt Romney is a total smeghead.

In a recent Fox News interview, Mitt Romney was asked the perennial question, “What is your favorite novel?” You’ve got a lot of choices, from A Tale of Two Cities to the novelization of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. What does he answer? “Battlefield Earth”.

For those not in the know, Battlefield Earth is to the Church of Scientology what Birth of a Nation is to the Ku Klux Klan. For those unaware of what THAT means, click here. The novel (recently adapted into a film by a large number of Scientologist actors and crew) is written by L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the church, and is an obvious preaching of Scientologist values.

One of the fundamental principles of Scientology is that psychiatrists are evil megalomaniacal masterminds who use hypnosis and drugs to keep the entire population of Earth under their command. They also believe that human souls are actually the ghosts of dead aliens who have been brainwashed by ancient alien psychiatrists into feeling pain. Oh how I wish I were making that up. But I’m not.

The book follows the adventures of Jonnie Goodboy Tyler (dumbest character name of all time) in the year 3000 when an alien race known as the Psychlos has enslaved humanity. A little about the Psychlos: they are so named because the Catrists, the ruling class of the Psychlos, have dubbed them all mental patients - Psychlo being their word for such. Jonnie Goodboy Tyler comes in contact with only one benevolent member of this race who belongs to a church where they are trying to overthrow the Psychlo Catrists.

Say that real fast: Psychlo Catrists.

Now, I’m no fan of the psychiatric profession - psychology, a completely different profession, is much more capable of handling most cases of mental distress, and modern psychiatry is much to preoccupied with drugs and medicine. But to think they are some kind of evil cabal is going far overboard.

Mitt Romney’s favorite book of all time is a piece of propoganda for a dangerous and twisted cult. And it’s not even very well written - trust me, I’m a tremendous sci-fi fan.

To put the spoiled whipped cream on the crap sundae, Mitt Romney made this joke:

As a Mormon, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman… and a woman, and a woman…

Yuk yuk. Polygyny isn’t funny, Mr. Romney, it’s a disgusting practice of devaluing women and is a hallmark of a violent agricultural society. So shut your big ugly pie-hole.

Your mission for the day: burn a copy of Battlefield Earth, kick John Travolta and Forrest Whittaker in the pants, and DON’T VOTE FOR ROMNEY!

Mitt Romney, Battlefield Earth, L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, Mormonism, Polygyny, Polygamy, John Travolta, Forrest Whittaker, the body politick