Political Frenzy

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.

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.