Political Frenzy

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.

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?

Today Cindy Sheehan, “war mom,” announced that because Speaker Pelosi didn’t file articles of impeachment against President Bush she will be running for Pelosi’s seat in the House.

Part of me likes this; the other part says…’ehh, what’s the point?’

Sheehan feels that our government is not doing its job and wants to do something about it, which is commendable. The Declaration of Independence says that we have the responsibility to challenge our government when we feel that it isn’t working. I also like that she will be running (if she makes it that far) as an independent.

I don’t like how Sheehan threatened Speaker Pelosi; it’s a bit cocky. As much as it would please a lot of people, impeaching President Bush is simply not realistic. Bush cannot be impeached for making questionable decisions. And, at the risk of sounding like a jerk, her son died while he was in the volunteer Army. President Bush didn’t pull Casey Sheehan out of bed in the middle of the night, give him a M-16, and force him to fight.

Sheehan said that Pelosi has lost touch with the people in her district. At least Pelosi lives in that district, Sheehan lives outside of Sacramento. Can she be more in touch with these people when she lives over an hour away?

Sheehan will run on the familiar platform of universal health care and making college more affordable. Does she even have a clue about how to take on these issues?

Should our politicians have actual experience in government before running for office? Or would they be more effective if they were a bunch of ordinary Joes? With the track record of our politicians it makes me wonder. I know that some people think a chimp could get more done than their congressman!

I live in Congressman Doolittle’s district…enough said.

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.

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

Don’t you love it when microphones are left on? We get to see what politicians are really thinking. This conversation between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards was captured recently following a debate amongst the large field of Democratic presidential candidates.

Hillary says that the other candidates are “just being trivialized.”

Trivialized: –verb, cause to appear unimportant. (Thanks Dictionary.com)

I don’t think the other candidates appeared unimportant at all. They were making great points. I think Mrs. Clinton was the one who was made to look unimportant. She feels threatened by truth.

If I was in her shoes, and felt invincible, I would want a million candidates around me so that I can show that I am the best. By her saying she wants less candidates around, it means she wants less competition. If you are clearly the best (in your mind) why do you want less competition?

She can’t handle the heat?

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.