Political Frenzy

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.

Despite the benchmarks, many of them political, to be met by September the Iraqi Parliament has decided to take the month of August off…good idea.

Facing tough questions from reporters White House spokesperson Tony Snow said that it is 130 degrees in Baghdad during the summer. OK, still waiting for a reason. As John Stewart put it, “we’re not asking them to play touch football, we’re asking them to stay inside and get sh*t done!”

Our troops are outside in sweltering heat dodging bullets sweating like Patrick Ewing, and these lawmakers can’t even sit inside of an air conditioned room and agree to easy legislation that will shape their country?

This just proves that the Iraqi “government” is relying on the US for absolutely everything and they know if they don’t meet the benchmarks nothing will happen. Can you think of a more blatant way for them to show the US that they know this?

Maybe the Army should take August off, we’ll see how Iraq runs without them.

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.

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!

Former President Jimmy Carter had some pretty harsh words for President George W. Bush. According to Carter:

We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered

According to Carter, in his interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the Bush administration is in a “radical departure from all previous administration policies” in regards to foreign relations.

Carter has been outspoken against Bush previously, but the White House has refused to fire back at the former President.

Until now.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, “I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there. I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”

Well done, Fratto. Increasingly irrelevant? You do realize that you are talking about the 20th Century President who has the most credibility on the subject of foreign relations ever, right? This is the man who mediated the Camp David Accords, bringing peace between Egypt and Israel after several bloody wars, including the Yom Kippur War. Today Egypt and Israeli leaders are still committed to peace between the two nations in no small thanks to President Carter.

While it may be pretty unanimously agreed that Jimmy Carter was not the greatest President (certainly not as bad as Millard Filmore, however - Scottish Presbyterian indeed!) he may be the greatest ex-President ever, having contributed more to this country and its people out of office than he did in office. If anything, Fratto, he is increasingly relevant.

Besides, who the hell are you, Tony Fratto? You’re not Tony Snow! Heck, you’re not even Dana Perino! If anyone’s irrelevant, it’s you.

I personally think George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter should just get it over with. Strap on the boxing gloves, get Lyndon LaDouche - er, LaRouche - to referee, have Don King promote it, and put it on Pay Per View.

I have twenty bucks says the peanut farmer K.O.s the former CEO in the fourth round.

Excuse me, I need to go pop some popcorn.

Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, Tony Fratto, Tony Snow, Dana Perino, Lyndon LaRouche, Don King, Millard Filmore, Scottish Presbyterian, Peanut Farmer, Presidential Contrecoup

The Democrats in the US Senate are seeking to resolve a motion of “No Confidence” against US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a political motion only done once before in US History against Dean Acheson, Secretary of State under Truman. The Vote of No Confidence was recently used in 2005 to remove Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

If the US Senate does indeed pass a Vote of No Confidence in Gonzales, it will be a symbolic gesture at most, and due to Gonzales’s close ties with the President, he is unlikely to be fired, though may step down in Rumsfeldian fashion.

I, personally, don’t see how anyone could continue to have any confidence in Gonzales. Either he is completely honest, and cannot remember a damn thing about what happened in his own office, or he’s competent but a liar. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t, lose - lose.

As readers of this blog will recall, I don’t think the powers that be at the Office of the Attorney General did anything out of the ordinary by politicizing their political job. But the sheer magnitude of Gonzales’s idiocy when dealing with the senatorial questioning is flooring!

74, Kieth Olbermann counts, as the number of times Gonzales said “I don’t recall” in a single hearing, an astounding figure for someone who is supposedly in charge of anything. His selective memory, or complete lack of control over his own department, is disturbing.

For more, over to Olbermann himself:

Alberto Gonzales, Dean Acheson, No Confidence, Kieth Olbermann

As John B. Bogart famously said, “When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news.”

Well then THIS is news!

President George W. Bush, famously abhorring and abstaining from the Kyoto Protocols and leading his opponents to claim he is in bed with oil interests, has now explicitly commanded the EPA and other federal organizations to actively pursue the restriction of gas emissions within the United States, to invest in alternative fuels, and to seek more gas efficient automobiles. While he hasn’t created any hard standards or solid goals, this explicit mission statement is bewildering considering Bush’s track record concerning these issues.

I really hope the EPA takes this seriously, as we really need to reduce our dependency on oil - for foreign relations, for the environment, and for our wallets.

George Bush, EPA, oil, emissions