Political Frenzy

(Matt Sullivan/Reuters)

The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s VP candidate seems to be confusing everyone, and I’m no exception.

Last Saturday when Obama choose Biden as his VP candidate a McCain spokesman said that it was “a concession” by Obama admitting that his lack of experience means he is not ready to be our president. Then McCain chooses someone with ZERO foreign policy experience? I want to know what that particular spokesman has to say about this.

One of McCain’s main arguments is that he is ready to “Lead on Day 1.” Is Palin?

We can argue about which experience is better, executive (like being a Governor) or legislative (being a Senator) until we are blue in the face. But one thing is clear, having no foreign policy experience is a huge problem. Having no executive experience is tolerable I think. No wars are going to be started because a part of the budget is labeled incorrectly.

It is argued, although not much longer, that Obama has ‘no experience.’ But I can promise you that he is competent in the issues that face America today, and that foreign leaders know and respect him.

Palin, at the moment is not known by foreign leaders. Sure, if McCain tells them that Palin is going to visit and that she is a great women then they will respect her. But wouldn’t they respect anyone if they are told to? McCain can tell a foreign leader that a blogger named Ryan is coming and that I am a great man. But that doesn’t mean I am ready to lead the country (not yet at least!).

I am looking forward to the Vice Presidential debate. Joe Biden has been involved in foreign policy issues for decades, he it going to blow her out of the water.

If something were to happen to President Obama, Vice President Biden could step in and deal with a foreign policy emergency without hesitation. If something were to happen to President McCain, would Vice President Palin be ready?

I’m sure she is a great Governor for Alaska, and it looks like she is a reformer which is what Washington needs. But a vice president needs to know what is going on in the world, not just in Juneau.

I just hate how McCain is showing that he thinks that people who voted for Hillary will vote for Palin just because she is a woman. This is an unfortunate political stunt.

http://www.politicalfrenzy.com/vice-president-sarah-palin/

Sarah Palin

This morning at an event in the swing state of Ohio, with the music from ‘Rudy’ playing in the background, John McCain tapped Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his VP nominee.

Who?

I am very proud of McCain showing that he can think outside the box. Is it risky to pick a female Governor who not many people are familiar with? YES! Which is exactly what the McCain campaign needed. His campaign has suffered a lack of enthusiasm from the start, picking an unknown woman does give it that little bit extra doesn’t it? It doesn’t hurt that she is also a former beauty queen.

Who is Sarah Palin? She got her degree in Journalism from the University of Idaho on a scholarship from being the runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant, she served two terms on the Wasilla City Council, in 1996 she was elected mayor of Wasilla (population 5,470), she unsuccessfully ran for Lieutanant Governor of Alaska in 2002, she was elected Governor of Alaska in 2006. (source: Wikipedia, it’s correct I promise!).

This is a huge risk for McCain, but not as risky if he chose who he really wanted to choose, Joe Lieberman. His party would not allow that, it must be tough to stand up to your party.

I find it odd that McCain choose someone who has so little experience because for months he has been attacking Obama’s lack of experience. This officially takes the issue of experience off the table. I wonder how McCain will attack Obama now.

Palin is known for her record of reform. Another word for reform is CHANGE! Sound familiar? This shows that the McCain campaigns acknowledges that change is needed in Washington. They don’t want the election to be change v. the old ways, and now it won’t be.

Part of me wonders if the pick is to try to grab Hillary voters strickly because Palin is a woman, the other part wonders why McCain had to throw a hail mary.

One person who has to be happy is Tina Fey, she will be busy over the next few months!

http://www.politicalfrenzy.com/mccain-logic/

Youth and experience is bad Mr. McCain?

In response to Barack Obama’s (late night) announcement that Joe Biden will be his running mate, John McCain was quick to attack.

An ad (which had to be put together weeks ago) showed quotes from Biden during the debates earlier this year in which he criticized Obama’s experience.

A McCain spokesman went on TV saying that because Obama picked the experienced Biden it is a ‘concession speech’ by Obama because it shows that he has no experience.

Do you really want to go there McCain?

First of all whoever McCain picks there will be similar, if not more harsh, videos of this new candidate criticizing McCain during the primary. This is politics folks, you attack your opponent and when they beat you, you tell everyone how great they are…it’s weird I know.

Does everyone remember the exchanges between McCain and Romney during the debates? If you don’t you sure will see the clips (immediately) if he chooses Romney as his running mate.

Now to the ‘concession speech’ remark…McCain you need to get some smarter help! This idiot is saying that because Obama chose a man who is very experienced it means that Obama himself is not experienced. If that is so,then why did McCain support the Bush-Cheney ticket?

By McCain’s logic Obama should have picked a retarded person, because that would mean that Obama is so smart he doesn’t need advice.

Also does this mean that because McCain will be picking a younger man that he is too old?

McCain, what does it imply when you have dumb campaign staff say stupid things on TV?

The floodgates are open, nice job McCain.

http://www.politicalfrenzy.com/obamas-1am-text/

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

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?

Before President Bush’s speech announcing the troop surge last January I remember watching it in anticipation of the announcement of a new shift in the direction of the quagmire in Iraq. I left it wondering what 30,000 troops could possibly accomplish.

Tomorrow President Bush will deliver a prime time speech announcing that he may reduce our troop level in Iraq by 30,000 next summer, if certain benchmarks are met.

Man does this look bad…. Or does it?

This can be taken either way. On one side it can show that there has been success with the surge and the additional troops are no longer needed, on the other side it can show that the surge did nothing and the president will finally begin to withdrawal troops.

Let’s be honest here, I wish more than you that it did, but the troop surge did not work, it was not large enough. For the amount of sectarian violence happening in Iraq, 30,000 troops was a drop in the pan.

I’m no general but to me it feels like our troops have a lack of objective. They are playing defense, trying not to die. This is no way to fight a war. Think about it, what is their goal right now? To make the Iraq government strong enough to stand on it’s own. This is a great goal, and one that needs to be achieved. However it can’t be achieved without reasonable troop strength.

I can hear you from here, “130,000 troops are not enough?!!!” No it isn’t. Why? What are our troops accomplishing right now? They are defending themselves, thats pretty much it. In your mind what constitutes a successful day in Iraq when you watch the evening news? If nobody dies? That is no way to be at war.

If a group of your friends are outnumbered 4 to 1 and getting pummeled, are you going to go help them, or are you just going to sit back and hope the enemy just stops attacking?

There is strength in numbers.

Most lefties are crying for a complete withdrawal of troops. This would only lead to more hell in Iraq. By pulling out we would leave nothing but unorganized chaos behind us, with more and more people dying everyday. This new plan seems a bit of an ‘out’ by the president and will not change a thing. A new direction is needed…

As my sister once told me, “either crap or get off the pot.”

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.

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.

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 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.