Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It is by that simple line that one of the greatest nations the world will ever know built her foundations. The undeniable right to practice whatever religious subject you so choose. As Americans we are subjected from time to time by things we may not agree with, but that is the beauty of what it is to be American, we live in a land where being different is ok.
In some countries, if you go outside the cultural norm, if you do things which are not accepted by the elite, you may find yourself six feet under. In Saudi Arabia a woman would be beaten by a mob if she ever dared to wear pants. In Singapore you can be caned for chewing gum. In America you can read from the Quran openly next to a man reading from the Bible, next to a woman reading from the Torah.
With all of that said, unless you've been living under a rock you've presumably heard SOMETHING about the 'Ground Zero Mosque', an Islamic Cultural Center(think YMCA with turbans) that is to be constructed roughly three blocks away from the former site of the Twin Towers, in an area of Manhattan filled with abandoned buildings, where almost all business has fled and prices have crashed in the wake of 9/11.
This center will include a basketball court, culinary school, pool, library, and a small portion of it will be set aside for open public religious worship. This institution will be open to the public, just like a YMCA, and anyone can use its prayer areas. It is being pushed by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam of one of the older mosques in Manhattan, a moderate clergyman who has made a life-goal of improving relations between Islamic society and Western society. He has written three books relating to Islam in America, specifically regarding the hand-in-hand nature of Muslim and American values. He is also employed by the Government(hired under the Bush Administration) to reach out to Muslim communities outside America, and preach to them about Islam in America.
Now it should come as no shock to any sane, level headed person that this is wrong. Wait.
What?
Alright, so in case you really have been living under a rock, the right-wing has come out in open hostility to this building. Notably the OVERWHELMING majority of those who oppose the center are people who don't live within New York City, both the Mayor and the City Council approved it(with a vote of 29-1). It's on private property owned by Imam Rauf, and is in no way shape or form visible from 'Ground Zero'.
I've laid out most of the facts here, without TOO much of my own bias, so here's where I'm going to throw down my gauntlet. I'm going to draw my line here. Cross it and you can go ahead and just emigrate, because you don't belong in America.
If the Cordoba House is blocked, Al Qaeda wins.
Let me say that again.
If the Cordoba House is blocked, Al Qaeda wins.
Think about it, please. Put some serious thought into this. Why did Al Qaeda attack us? Why did Osama Bin Laden target America? Because he felt that we hate Islam. That we seek to destroy Islam, to destroy his way of life. He believes that America is evil, that we are a christian theocracy that would gladly launch another crusade if we had the opportunity.
Think about the message it sends to have an Islamic Cultural Center a few blocks from such a horrific religiously-inspired tragedy? It says that as Americans, we see past the star, the cross, and the crescent. It says that as Americans we understand that there are fanatics of every creed, color, and religion, and as Americans we do as Christ did...
We do not judge our fellow man for the sins of others. As Americans we do as Christ, we judge a man for his deeds and his alone.
And that is what it is to be American.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordoba_House
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Relevant posts up
I posted my 'greatest hits' so to speak from Facebook, they're the most relevant political posts I've made since 2006. Mostly the events that have most significantly impacted my current political ideology...or to put it simply, these are the posts that most clearly indicate how I got to be where I am today, and we will go from there.
Enjoy :)
Enjoy :)
Prop-8 Analysis
So the judicial aftermath of Proposition 8 being overturned(in case you live under a rock it was a ballot initiative funded by the Mormon church to ban gay marriage in California) has gotten a lot more complicated, and a hell of a lot more interesting.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2010377,00.html
Basically, long story short(and it is fucking complicated, so still kinda long)
Because it's a California law, the state of California had to be sued in order to over-turn it. Irony of ironies, both the Governor and Attorney General of California were in support of gay marriage, and thus in a controversial move refused to mount a legal defense(Attorney generals are supposed to defend all state laws, regardless of their own political opinion). As a result of this Judge Walker allowed random-anti-gay-group to defend the ballot initiative at trial.
However, now that the trial is over, Judge Walker has stated that the group may not have the legal right to file an appeal, as it does not directly relate to them, and that only the Governor or Attorney General can file an appeal. They have until this Thursday at 5pm to do so, and they have both already previously stated they will not, and that they fully support Judge Walker's ruling.
So here's where things get fun.
If the group files an appeal despite Judge Walker's warning, the Circuit Court will have to rule on whether or not they have legal standing to file the appeal in the first place. If they should decide that the group does not have legal standing to appeal, they may also rule that they had no right to defend the ballot initiative in the first place, thereby nullifying Judge Walker's ruling, and sending it back to his court to be rehashed out all over again. Now if the Attorney General and the Governor are still in office at that time, Prop 8 is defeated and equality of marriage is established in California, however, neither of them will be in office come 2011, new Governor, new Attorney General..and thus the State of California may actually mount a legal defense for Prop 8.
Beyond that, if the Circuit Court rules that they do not have the right to appeal but does not undo the trial, the only option remaining would be to appeal to the Supreme Court to intervene, and the presiding Justice over the 9th circuit happens to be Justice Kennedy, one of the most respected jurists on the bench for his common sense interpretations of constitutional law. He's likely to rule in favor of equal marriage, based on the findings of fact issued by Judge Walker, but whether or not he would decide the case needs to be heard by the supreme court..
These are the possible outcomes:
If the case is appealed all the way to the supreme court and the justices rule in favor of Prop 8, nothing changes. Current status quo is that states can pass laws banning gay marriage. Prop 8 is just another one of those laws.
If the case is appealed to the supreme court and the justices rule against Prop 8, it strikes down the states 'right' to legislate on this matter, determining as Judge Walker did that same-sex marriage is protected by both Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the constitution. Such a decision would legalize same-sex marriages nationwide.
The only way the circuit court can impact this case(because no matter what if they decide to hear it it WILL go to the supreme court) is to rule that the proponents of Prop 8 had no legal standing to be in court in the first place, and as stated such a ruling would essentially push a restart button on the whole thing. If by that time a new Attorney General OR Governor is in office, it is possible that a much stronger legal defense will be provided for Prop 8, one of the things that Judge Walker pointed out in his ruling was that the group that defended it did not do so very well.
It's important to understand that courtrooms are very different environments. The Judge could very well find a different ruling if the case is reheard, based on what defense is provided that time around. Judge Walker based his ruling on the overwhelming strength of the opponents case, compared with the weak defense provided by the group put in charge of it. If the state is put in charge of defending Prop 8 they may present a more compelling legal case, and thus result in a different ruling, or at least one that is not so overwhelmingly for gay marriage.
If you are a supporter of Prop 8(aka a moron) that would be the ideal outcome for you. I would also recommend sterilization.
If you are a supporter of Prop 8 you do NOT want this to go to the supreme court.
Scalia-Against
Roberts-Against
Thomas-Against
Alito-Against
Sotomayor-For
Kagan-For
Breyer-For
Ginsburg-For
Kennedy-For(every previous case regarding the rights of homosexuals he has voted in favor of, on the same legal basis that Judge Walker ruled, Due Process and Equal Protection)
5-4 Equal right to marriage for all Americans.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2010377,00.html
Basically, long story short(and it is fucking complicated, so still kinda long)
Because it's a California law, the state of California had to be sued in order to over-turn it. Irony of ironies, both the Governor and Attorney General of California were in support of gay marriage, and thus in a controversial move refused to mount a legal defense(Attorney generals are supposed to defend all state laws, regardless of their own political opinion). As a result of this Judge Walker allowed random-anti-gay-group to defend the ballot initiative at trial.
However, now that the trial is over, Judge Walker has stated that the group may not have the legal right to file an appeal, as it does not directly relate to them, and that only the Governor or Attorney General can file an appeal. They have until this Thursday at 5pm to do so, and they have both already previously stated they will not, and that they fully support Judge Walker's ruling.
So here's where things get fun.
If the group files an appeal despite Judge Walker's warning, the Circuit Court will have to rule on whether or not they have legal standing to file the appeal in the first place. If they should decide that the group does not have legal standing to appeal, they may also rule that they had no right to defend the ballot initiative in the first place, thereby nullifying Judge Walker's ruling, and sending it back to his court to be rehashed out all over again. Now if the Attorney General and the Governor are still in office at that time, Prop 8 is defeated and equality of marriage is established in California, however, neither of them will be in office come 2011, new Governor, new Attorney General..and thus the State of California may actually mount a legal defense for Prop 8.
Beyond that, if the Circuit Court rules that they do not have the right to appeal but does not undo the trial, the only option remaining would be to appeal to the Supreme Court to intervene, and the presiding Justice over the 9th circuit happens to be Justice Kennedy, one of the most respected jurists on the bench for his common sense interpretations of constitutional law. He's likely to rule in favor of equal marriage, based on the findings of fact issued by Judge Walker, but whether or not he would decide the case needs to be heard by the supreme court..
These are the possible outcomes:
If the case is appealed all the way to the supreme court and the justices rule in favor of Prop 8, nothing changes. Current status quo is that states can pass laws banning gay marriage. Prop 8 is just another one of those laws.
If the case is appealed to the supreme court and the justices rule against Prop 8, it strikes down the states 'right' to legislate on this matter, determining as Judge Walker did that same-sex marriage is protected by both Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the constitution. Such a decision would legalize same-sex marriages nationwide.
The only way the circuit court can impact this case(because no matter what if they decide to hear it it WILL go to the supreme court) is to rule that the proponents of Prop 8 had no legal standing to be in court in the first place, and as stated such a ruling would essentially push a restart button on the whole thing. If by that time a new Attorney General OR Governor is in office, it is possible that a much stronger legal defense will be provided for Prop 8, one of the things that Judge Walker pointed out in his ruling was that the group that defended it did not do so very well.
It's important to understand that courtrooms are very different environments. The Judge could very well find a different ruling if the case is reheard, based on what defense is provided that time around. Judge Walker based his ruling on the overwhelming strength of the opponents case, compared with the weak defense provided by the group put in charge of it. If the state is put in charge of defending Prop 8 they may present a more compelling legal case, and thus result in a different ruling, or at least one that is not so overwhelmingly for gay marriage.
If you are a supporter of Prop 8(aka a moron) that would be the ideal outcome for you. I would also recommend sterilization.
If you are a supporter of Prop 8 you do NOT want this to go to the supreme court.
Scalia-Against
Roberts-Against
Thomas-Against
Alito-Against
Sotomayor-For
Kagan-For
Breyer-For
Ginsburg-For
Kennedy-For(every previous case regarding the rights of homosexuals he has voted in favor of, on the same legal basis that Judge Walker ruled, Due Process and Equal Protection)
5-4 Equal right to marriage for all Americans.
Arizona immigration analysis
Just a random thought, since I finally bothered to look into this whole immigration nonsense in Arizona, immigration as a topic generally bores me, since I was one of those sociopaths in favor of the whole NAFTA becoming an EU type deal... or at least open borders between the big three in North America(and by big three I mean Mexico/USA, since our border with Canada is MOSTLY open..)
The law is pretty simple, to the point, and if you look at it on face value alone you don't get where it's intrusive.
Officers in Arizona now have the legal right to demand proof of your legal residency in the United States.
Now if you're driving a car, this makes sense and isn't a problem, you'll have a license, wham bam problem solved.
But what if you can't drive? What if you don't HAVE an ID? You're now legally required in the state of Arizona to carry your social security card on you at all times is essentially what this means.
But hey, don't worry about it unless you're 'Mexican-Looking' ...not that this is racially motivated at all.
What a joke.
The law is pretty simple, to the point, and if you look at it on face value alone you don't get where it's intrusive.
Officers in Arizona now have the legal right to demand proof of your legal residency in the United States.
Now if you're driving a car, this makes sense and isn't a problem, you'll have a license, wham bam problem solved.
But what if you can't drive? What if you don't HAVE an ID? You're now legally required in the state of Arizona to carry your social security card on you at all times is essentially what this means.
But hey, don't worry about it unless you're 'Mexican-Looking' ...not that this is racially motivated at all.
What a joke.
I voted against John McCain, and why you should've '08 Analysis
I tagged EVERYONE on my list(up to the J's...) because I want as many people to read this as possible. You don't have to read, and if you're ignorant enough then you can go ahead and delete me or something, because I'm not forcing you to read this :)
I will write this in 3 points, feel free to read it all, or read only that which applies to you. I will start with my own flesh and blood.
Republicans
I've had to witness alot of bastardization towards the ideals of the Republican Party. I've seen social issues that have no real merit or weight in politics suddenly become deciding factors in presidential elections(Kerry was resoundingly stomped by mass turn out by evangelical voters who came out to vote for a gay marriage ban in different battleground states, most notably Missouri). I've met Republicans who have no concept what-so-ever for the merits of capitalism, some even commenting that they're 'not big fans'. But they're Republican because they carry a bible.
I'll stop there for a second and point out that I am a Christian, I believe in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, I am very passionate about it, I simply choose not to talk about it for the respect of my fellow man.
One hero I've always had, someone who has in fact been my political idol, a politician who dared to tell the truth and do what he felt in his heart was the right thing to do, was John McCain. I loved McCain, I always figured he would never run again after 2000, he could never do it, he knew he could never do it, everyone knew he could never do it. Here's the facts for those who don't know or pretend they don't know, in 2000 McCain lost the primary to Bush because of Karl Rove and the far right, who actually had the AUDACITY to attack McCain's war record. McCain blasted his critics, Jerry Falwell and other members of the religious right he very openly hated.
...and my heart shattered when he cozied up to them over the past few years, rubbed elbows with the men who had destroyed his campaign in 2000, the ideologues who don't give a damn about what it really means to have integrity, who only care about making this country into a Christian version of Iran. We are granted by god the right to be free and live in happiness, the America these theocrats want is an America where there is only one accepted god, one religion, and that is that. A land where all abortions of all kinds are illegal, spare the child spoil the mother. A country where it's NOT ok to be with someone because you love them, regardless of who they happen to be. A country where we would judge each other, and be judged. Because that's really what Christ wanted, right? That's really why he died, right? So you can judge others? McCain fought against these ideas, and has now embraced their support because he knew it was the ONLY way he could win the Republican nomination. In doing so however he has sacrificed his integrity, and with it he has lost the majority of the independent vote, not to mention most of us Republicans who consider ourselves intellectuals are sure as hell not going to vote for him now that he's picked Sarah Palin. To be honest with you had he picked Mitt Romney I'd be voting for him, but no fucking way will I cast a vote for a woman as dumb as that. Secondly for anyone who likes her, SHE SUPPORTED BOOK BURNING FOR FUCKS SAKE. Nazi much?
Independents
In all likely hood, neither McCain nor Obama would survive their first time. For one McCain is very very old, and is very noticeably confused in his public appearances, he seems lost when he's on TV. And let's face it. This country is fucking racist. West Virginia has a 50% Democratic Party membership and it's going to go for McCain. If Obama gets elected, the reality of the situation is that he probably will be killed, or he will at the very least have an attempt put on his life. I'm not happy about it, I WILL cry when it happens, but it's highly probable, this country is pretty fucked up. That being said it becomes who do you want, Biden or Palin?
Let that sink in.
If you really think Palin should be president, go jump off a bridge. The woman is dumb as all hell, crooked as the day is long, have you heard her voice? My god it's annoying. Not to mention the fact that she was found to have been unethical in 'Troopergate' but what's most disturbing about that is that they found that her HUSBAND abused HER powers as Governor. Seriously.
Democrats
Seriously? You have to ask?
I have to reiterate this one point though. I'm not voting FOR Barack Obama. I am voting AGAINST John McCain. Will my vote be cast for the democratic ticket? Yes. Why? Because it has a higher chance of winning than Bob Barr. If this were a parliamentary system you bet your sweet ass I'd be voting for Barr but since I don't want to waste my vote I'm sending it to Obama. I do not agree with Obama on...well..anything. In fact as a Libertarian I am opposed to almost everything he stands for, HOWEVER let's face it, this country has been going into the shitter over the past 8 years and as a conservative I feel that there's only one thing that'll get the Republicans to understand and figure out what they did wrong.
And that's a Democrat in the white house and 60 Democrats in the Senate.
I hope they learn their lesson after this. Because if not then I don't know what will teach them.
I will write this in 3 points, feel free to read it all, or read only that which applies to you. I will start with my own flesh and blood.
Republicans
I've had to witness alot of bastardization towards the ideals of the Republican Party. I've seen social issues that have no real merit or weight in politics suddenly become deciding factors in presidential elections(Kerry was resoundingly stomped by mass turn out by evangelical voters who came out to vote for a gay marriage ban in different battleground states, most notably Missouri). I've met Republicans who have no concept what-so-ever for the merits of capitalism, some even commenting that they're 'not big fans'. But they're Republican because they carry a bible.
I'll stop there for a second and point out that I am a Christian, I believe in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, I am very passionate about it, I simply choose not to talk about it for the respect of my fellow man.
One hero I've always had, someone who has in fact been my political idol, a politician who dared to tell the truth and do what he felt in his heart was the right thing to do, was John McCain. I loved McCain, I always figured he would never run again after 2000, he could never do it, he knew he could never do it, everyone knew he could never do it. Here's the facts for those who don't know or pretend they don't know, in 2000 McCain lost the primary to Bush because of Karl Rove and the far right, who actually had the AUDACITY to attack McCain's war record. McCain blasted his critics, Jerry Falwell and other members of the religious right he very openly hated.
...and my heart shattered when he cozied up to them over the past few years, rubbed elbows with the men who had destroyed his campaign in 2000, the ideologues who don't give a damn about what it really means to have integrity, who only care about making this country into a Christian version of Iran. We are granted by god the right to be free and live in happiness, the America these theocrats want is an America where there is only one accepted god, one religion, and that is that. A land where all abortions of all kinds are illegal, spare the child spoil the mother. A country where it's NOT ok to be with someone because you love them, regardless of who they happen to be. A country where we would judge each other, and be judged. Because that's really what Christ wanted, right? That's really why he died, right? So you can judge others? McCain fought against these ideas, and has now embraced their support because he knew it was the ONLY way he could win the Republican nomination. In doing so however he has sacrificed his integrity, and with it he has lost the majority of the independent vote, not to mention most of us Republicans who consider ourselves intellectuals are sure as hell not going to vote for him now that he's picked Sarah Palin. To be honest with you had he picked Mitt Romney I'd be voting for him, but no fucking way will I cast a vote for a woman as dumb as that. Secondly for anyone who likes her, SHE SUPPORTED BOOK BURNING FOR FUCKS SAKE. Nazi much?
Independents
In all likely hood, neither McCain nor Obama would survive their first time. For one McCain is very very old, and is very noticeably confused in his public appearances, he seems lost when he's on TV. And let's face it. This country is fucking racist. West Virginia has a 50% Democratic Party membership and it's going to go for McCain. If Obama gets elected, the reality of the situation is that he probably will be killed, or he will at the very least have an attempt put on his life. I'm not happy about it, I WILL cry when it happens, but it's highly probable, this country is pretty fucked up. That being said it becomes who do you want, Biden or Palin?
Let that sink in.
If you really think Palin should be president, go jump off a bridge. The woman is dumb as all hell, crooked as the day is long, have you heard her voice? My god it's annoying. Not to mention the fact that she was found to have been unethical in 'Troopergate' but what's most disturbing about that is that they found that her HUSBAND abused HER powers as Governor. Seriously.
Democrats
Seriously? You have to ask?
I have to reiterate this one point though. I'm not voting FOR Barack Obama. I am voting AGAINST John McCain. Will my vote be cast for the democratic ticket? Yes. Why? Because it has a higher chance of winning than Bob Barr. If this were a parliamentary system you bet your sweet ass I'd be voting for Barr but since I don't want to waste my vote I'm sending it to Obama. I do not agree with Obama on...well..anything. In fact as a Libertarian I am opposed to almost everything he stands for, HOWEVER let's face it, this country has been going into the shitter over the past 8 years and as a conservative I feel that there's only one thing that'll get the Republicans to understand and figure out what they did wrong.
And that's a Democrat in the white house and 60 Democrats in the Senate.
I hope they learn their lesson after this. Because if not then I don't know what will teach them.
Random '08 Analysis, voting for Obama because he's black
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
I will not vote for John McCain '08 Analysis
Unless Hillary wins the nomination, I will begrudgingly have no choice in November but to vote for what I classify as the 'lesser of two evils' in Barack Obama.
I've said it. Crucify me if you must, but there it is. I will vote for Obama in November if he wins the nomination.
I don't support Obama on 90% of all issues.
In fact, I support McCain on a majority of issues. However, I make my decisions of support on a small list of things. The most important issues being fiscal and foreign policy.
Fiscally I agree with both men. McCain has a long standing reputation, and Obama has been one of the most vocal and long-standing advocates for PayGo budgets.
Where I have finally drawn my line is the result of a recent speech, and exposing of those who are working to design McCain's new foreign policy.
1-McCain supports removing Russia from the G8.
Lol. What? Seriously. I will concede that Russia is neither industrialized, nor with the assistance of Mr. KGB democratic, but the facts are this: A-By G8 rules, not only would all 6 other nations have to approve of our petition to remove Russia, Russia would ALSO have to support such a motion. B-LOL AS IF EUROPE WOULD ISOLATE RUSSIA C-Attempting to isolate or bully a nation in foreign policy because of human right issues is fail and that's all there is to it. How's that policy of ours working on Cuba? Myanmar? Belarus? Iran? North Korea? I will say this once and only once and if you disagree with me you are a retard and do not understand foreign policy in the very least. ISOLATION DOES NOT WORK. The freer the market, the freer the people, if you open relations with a state and treat them as an equal and allow trade with them, their society will open up because the money simply has to go SOMEWHERE. Don't try that bullshit line about how they just keep it for themselves, when they're that god damn poor there's so much money flowing into the states that the leaders don't have an option but to let it trickle down. Indonesia is the greatest example of all. Say what you want about Suharto but he transformed Indonesia from a backwater shitstain former colony into one of the greatest economic powerhouses in the world and a founding member of ASEAN.
2-McCain's advisors are firm supporters of a tough stance on Iran and opposed to expanded negotiations with North Korea.
Hi, treating psychotic whiny iron-fisted men like psychotic whiny CHILDREN doesn't accomplish a god damn thing. It never has, it never will. Did you know that North Korea during the highest points of tension publicly stated that ALL it wanted was for America to unilaterally negotiate with them, not through China, not through Japan, one on one. All North Korea has ever wanted was to be treated like a fellow nation on the stage, and we have refused to give them even that. What's the cost of our refusal? Why don't you take a look at the average North Korean's ribcage. Is it entirely our fault? No. But if we treated them like considerably worse leaders such as Musharref or the House of Saud, east Asia would be a considerably less tense place.
Basically, McCain is a hawk, I've said this before. But what makes it worse is his advisor's are Neo-Cons. Neo-Cons are what destroyed the dignity of the Republican Party. They pushed the unnecessary war in Iraq which has crippled our economy, and they push more and more wars. Hi, I hate to break this to you, but it turns out war is bad for the economy WHEN YOU'RE SPENDING BILLIONS TO BLOW THE FUCK OUT OF THE DESERT
Sure, world war II was awesome for our economy, because at the time we were going up against equals if not even states that could be argued as our superiors at the time, but war isn't good when you drag it out and the state isn't even technically at war.
There is no draft, there are no rations, everything is like it was 10 years ago, except for that tiny little detail that our military is extremely over extended and spending billions upon billions to blow the shit out of things and what's worse is we can't even watch it on CNN because the fun part of the war was over in a day.
For the record, I don't support pulling out, as I like to say 'even an eleven year old in health class can tell you pulling out doesn't work' but the fact of the matter is, with the economy going where it is.
We have to make a decision, and this is a simple decision, and any true conservative who understands the ideals of conservatism knows the right answer:
Do we continue in Iraq to stabilize the country we destroyed, at the risk of crashing our economy
or
Do we withdraw from Iraq, creating a power vacuum which will leave our interests in the region jeopardized, but our state secure
Neither is a good scenario, but when it comes down to it, what matters most of all is the stability of America. Fuck the rest of the world. They hate us anyways.
I've said it. Crucify me if you must, but there it is. I will vote for Obama in November if he wins the nomination.
I don't support Obama on 90% of all issues.
In fact, I support McCain on a majority of issues. However, I make my decisions of support on a small list of things. The most important issues being fiscal and foreign policy.
Fiscally I agree with both men. McCain has a long standing reputation, and Obama has been one of the most vocal and long-standing advocates for PayGo budgets.
Where I have finally drawn my line is the result of a recent speech, and exposing of those who are working to design McCain's new foreign policy.
1-McCain supports removing Russia from the G8.
Lol. What? Seriously. I will concede that Russia is neither industrialized, nor with the assistance of Mr. KGB democratic, but the facts are this: A-By G8 rules, not only would all 6 other nations have to approve of our petition to remove Russia, Russia would ALSO have to support such a motion. B-LOL AS IF EUROPE WOULD ISOLATE RUSSIA C-Attempting to isolate or bully a nation in foreign policy because of human right issues is fail and that's all there is to it. How's that policy of ours working on Cuba? Myanmar? Belarus? Iran? North Korea? I will say this once and only once and if you disagree with me you are a retard and do not understand foreign policy in the very least. ISOLATION DOES NOT WORK. The freer the market, the freer the people, if you open relations with a state and treat them as an equal and allow trade with them, their society will open up because the money simply has to go SOMEWHERE. Don't try that bullshit line about how they just keep it for themselves, when they're that god damn poor there's so much money flowing into the states that the leaders don't have an option but to let it trickle down. Indonesia is the greatest example of all. Say what you want about Suharto but he transformed Indonesia from a backwater shitstain former colony into one of the greatest economic powerhouses in the world and a founding member of ASEAN.
2-McCain's advisors are firm supporters of a tough stance on Iran and opposed to expanded negotiations with North Korea.
Hi, treating psychotic whiny iron-fisted men like psychotic whiny CHILDREN doesn't accomplish a god damn thing. It never has, it never will. Did you know that North Korea during the highest points of tension publicly stated that ALL it wanted was for America to unilaterally negotiate with them, not through China, not through Japan, one on one. All North Korea has ever wanted was to be treated like a fellow nation on the stage, and we have refused to give them even that. What's the cost of our refusal? Why don't you take a look at the average North Korean's ribcage. Is it entirely our fault? No. But if we treated them like considerably worse leaders such as Musharref or the House of Saud, east Asia would be a considerably less tense place.
Basically, McCain is a hawk, I've said this before. But what makes it worse is his advisor's are Neo-Cons. Neo-Cons are what destroyed the dignity of the Republican Party. They pushed the unnecessary war in Iraq which has crippled our economy, and they push more and more wars. Hi, I hate to break this to you, but it turns out war is bad for the economy WHEN YOU'RE SPENDING BILLIONS TO BLOW THE FUCK OUT OF THE DESERT
Sure, world war II was awesome for our economy, because at the time we were going up against equals if not even states that could be argued as our superiors at the time, but war isn't good when you drag it out and the state isn't even technically at war.
There is no draft, there are no rations, everything is like it was 10 years ago, except for that tiny little detail that our military is extremely over extended and spending billions upon billions to blow the shit out of things and what's worse is we can't even watch it on CNN because the fun part of the war was over in a day.
For the record, I don't support pulling out, as I like to say 'even an eleven year old in health class can tell you pulling out doesn't work' but the fact of the matter is, with the economy going where it is.
We have to make a decision, and this is a simple decision, and any true conservative who understands the ideals of conservatism knows the right answer:
Do we continue in Iraq to stabilize the country we destroyed, at the risk of crashing our economy
or
Do we withdraw from Iraq, creating a power vacuum which will leave our interests in the region jeopardized, but our state secure
Neither is a good scenario, but when it comes down to it, what matters most of all is the stability of America. Fuck the rest of the world. They hate us anyways.
Hillary's refusal to quit, analyzing McCain v. Obama pre-Palin '08
Haven't written much since the primaries got boring.
So, now I analyze and spew out a random diatribe, because it makes me feel smart, blahblahblah.
McCain easily won the nomination. Frankly, anyone that really predicted he would win the nomination was as good as anyone that predicted Bush would win in 2000. I like McCain, I've always liked McCain, who hasn't, honestly? How can you NOT like a moderate from a neutral place like Arizona, who was a tortured POW in Vietnam?
Like...he could be in favor of mandatory abortion and he'd still have at least higher approval than el presidente has. His policies are seriously irrelevant, he's from a neutral area of the country that says nothing about him, he's single handedly kept the word 'bi-partisan' alive, and if that's not enough to give him appeal, for fucks sake he was tortured for years in a Vietnamese prison.
...That being said I don't base my vote strictly on the color that CNN gives them on the electoral map, or how nice of a person they seem to be. Issues=#1
So with that in mind, McCain is:
1-Pro-War, a hawk, if you will. This is where he draws almost all of his appeal, as I stated in a previous blog outlining what WILL happen depending on who the nominee is(assuming they also win in November). A McCain-led GOP is a confusing animal to a political analyst. What we have is a socially liberal hawk in charge of the party which was founded on conservatism and isolationism, IE staying the fuck out of other country's. I concede that isolationism was a policy that died 70 years ago, but still, the point I make here is where's the dividing line between the parties? I'd have been happier with an anti-war Republican, even if I *AM* opposed to a pull out, if only to prevent the parties from drifting further and further into a gray area which makes them both feasibly the same, I could give a fuck about the future of Iraq, after all, since when was a country's complete and total collapse ever a reason for us to stay there? Precedence.(fyi: before Reagan, most social conservatives were democrats, but apparently the Democrat's had this crazy notion that the 'coloreds' were equal, and so the southern Democrats(social conservatives) switched sides, note sarcasm in reference to coloreds)
2-Pro-Choice...? He is. Or..is he? This is McCain's biggest issue, fact of the matter is his social stances are a gray area. It's this reason and this reason alone that there's a great deal of thumping on the far right for a third party candidate(because that's ALWAYS a good idea right?) If a third party candidate DOES arise, it will be a guaranteed Democrat victory, the fact of the matter is McCain is extremely weak on social issues, but Democrats can't capitalize on this(presumably his ONLY real weakness) because odds are if they aren't in agreement, the democrats are further to the left of his stances, and good luck winning states like Ohio or Missouri if you're trying to argue that your opponent isn't ENOUGH in favor of choice, or gay marriage, etc.
3-A white man. Funny how something as mundane as that could actually be an issue eh? You'll likely find quite a few undecideds, who simply don't care, going with the 'why not make history?' vote. Regardless of who wins the nomination on the other side(and believe me I'll get to that one), it will either be a black man or a white woman vs. a white man. Nifty, eh?
4-Moderate. I've said this already but it's a serious point to make. The last moderate president we had was Clinton. Prior to that we had two conservative Republicans, and a liberal Democrat. Some of history's most successful presidents have been ones that gray the lines a bit, because not only do they have broader appeal, they also usually have an easier time creating legislation, and therefor an easier time of actually accomplishing things. Even with a conservative congress for the first few years, what did Bush actually accomplish? You'll find generally that when a single party has complete control, they don't know what to do first, and rather then doing anything, they'll just argue over what to do. A moderate Republican president with a Democrat congress could very well be what the country needs right now.
But...who knows.
No one talks about McCain, so I figured I'd give him a good deal of attention, but now to the proverbial donkey in the room.
I told my brother very simply on the last set of contests with Ohio and Texas and what not, if Obama did not win them all, the Democrats would not win in November. That is strictly because with Obama having lost Texas and Ohio, when the media was all abuzz that Obama 'had to win', it's now gone back to an almost equal footing. It is literally impossible for either Hillary or Obama to win the nomination prior to the convention...in August.
McCain will have had a full six month head start against the Democrats. Further, unless Hillary wins every last single primary between here and there, which is certainly feasible, though she'll have as much of an uphill fight in North Carolina as Obama has in Pennsylvania, Obama WILL win the nomination. He's won more states, and she can argue all she wants that she's won the 'big states', but she only won them narrowly. Every victory Hillary has had has been a narrow victory, whereas a large number of Obama's victory's have been massive landslides. When he wins, he wins big, when she wins, she barely squeaks by. That, and the fact that Obama is nationally more popular than her, and for that matter Hillary now has a 48% disapproval rating compared with a 35% approval rating(almost as low as Bush), guarantees that Obama WILL win the nomination. If the Superdelegates choose Clinton over him, it's been pretty much determined that a huge number of Democrats simply won't go to the polls at all, including a majority of the black voters, and some might even turn out(like myself) to vote AGAINST Hillary.
My stance is this. I like Obama as a person, I like McCain as a person. Hillary I do not like. She is not a respectable person, and this campaign has proved it. Her victory's in Texas and Ohio were ENTIRELY because she went negative. If she wins, I know who I'll vote for in November. If he wins, I don't know. I really don't.
I don't feel, after McCain attempted to court Falwell, that I can trust him anymore. Much the same, Obama is a liberal, but the real fact of the matter is the Democrats are going to pick up more seats in the Senate and the House in this election. So whether or not Obama or McCain wins is rather irrelevant, since the Democrats could very well have a veto-proof majority come January.
My only concern would be a liberal president combined with a liberal congress. Which is a possibility, a possibility which is no better than a conservative president combined with a conservative congress. There must ALWAYS be a counter-weight.
So, now I analyze and spew out a random diatribe, because it makes me feel smart, blahblahblah.
McCain easily won the nomination. Frankly, anyone that really predicted he would win the nomination was as good as anyone that predicted Bush would win in 2000. I like McCain, I've always liked McCain, who hasn't, honestly? How can you NOT like a moderate from a neutral place like Arizona, who was a tortured POW in Vietnam?
Like...he could be in favor of mandatory abortion and he'd still have at least higher approval than el presidente has. His policies are seriously irrelevant, he's from a neutral area of the country that says nothing about him, he's single handedly kept the word 'bi-partisan' alive, and if that's not enough to give him appeal, for fucks sake he was tortured for years in a Vietnamese prison.
...That being said I don't base my vote strictly on the color that CNN gives them on the electoral map, or how nice of a person they seem to be. Issues=#1
So with that in mind, McCain is:
1-Pro-War, a hawk, if you will. This is where he draws almost all of his appeal, as I stated in a previous blog outlining what WILL happen depending on who the nominee is(assuming they also win in November). A McCain-led GOP is a confusing animal to a political analyst. What we have is a socially liberal hawk in charge of the party which was founded on conservatism and isolationism, IE staying the fuck out of other country's. I concede that isolationism was a policy that died 70 years ago, but still, the point I make here is where's the dividing line between the parties? I'd have been happier with an anti-war Republican, even if I *AM* opposed to a pull out, if only to prevent the parties from drifting further and further into a gray area which makes them both feasibly the same, I could give a fuck about the future of Iraq, after all, since when was a country's complete and total collapse ever a reason for us to stay there? Precedence.(fyi: before Reagan, most social conservatives were democrats, but apparently the Democrat's had this crazy notion that the 'coloreds' were equal, and so the southern Democrats(social conservatives) switched sides, note sarcasm in reference to coloreds)
2-Pro-Choice...? He is. Or..is he? This is McCain's biggest issue, fact of the matter is his social stances are a gray area. It's this reason and this reason alone that there's a great deal of thumping on the far right for a third party candidate(because that's ALWAYS a good idea right?) If a third party candidate DOES arise, it will be a guaranteed Democrat victory, the fact of the matter is McCain is extremely weak on social issues, but Democrats can't capitalize on this(presumably his ONLY real weakness) because odds are if they aren't in agreement, the democrats are further to the left of his stances, and good luck winning states like Ohio or Missouri if you're trying to argue that your opponent isn't ENOUGH in favor of choice, or gay marriage, etc.
3-A white man. Funny how something as mundane as that could actually be an issue eh? You'll likely find quite a few undecideds, who simply don't care, going with the 'why not make history?' vote. Regardless of who wins the nomination on the other side(and believe me I'll get to that one), it will either be a black man or a white woman vs. a white man. Nifty, eh?
4-Moderate. I've said this already but it's a serious point to make. The last moderate president we had was Clinton. Prior to that we had two conservative Republicans, and a liberal Democrat. Some of history's most successful presidents have been ones that gray the lines a bit, because not only do they have broader appeal, they also usually have an easier time creating legislation, and therefor an easier time of actually accomplishing things. Even with a conservative congress for the first few years, what did Bush actually accomplish? You'll find generally that when a single party has complete control, they don't know what to do first, and rather then doing anything, they'll just argue over what to do. A moderate Republican president with a Democrat congress could very well be what the country needs right now.
But...who knows.
No one talks about McCain, so I figured I'd give him a good deal of attention, but now to the proverbial donkey in the room.
I told my brother very simply on the last set of contests with Ohio and Texas and what not, if Obama did not win them all, the Democrats would not win in November. That is strictly because with Obama having lost Texas and Ohio, when the media was all abuzz that Obama 'had to win', it's now gone back to an almost equal footing. It is literally impossible for either Hillary or Obama to win the nomination prior to the convention...in August.
McCain will have had a full six month head start against the Democrats. Further, unless Hillary wins every last single primary between here and there, which is certainly feasible, though she'll have as much of an uphill fight in North Carolina as Obama has in Pennsylvania, Obama WILL win the nomination. He's won more states, and she can argue all she wants that she's won the 'big states', but she only won them narrowly. Every victory Hillary has had has been a narrow victory, whereas a large number of Obama's victory's have been massive landslides. When he wins, he wins big, when she wins, she barely squeaks by. That, and the fact that Obama is nationally more popular than her, and for that matter Hillary now has a 48% disapproval rating compared with a 35% approval rating(almost as low as Bush), guarantees that Obama WILL win the nomination. If the Superdelegates choose Clinton over him, it's been pretty much determined that a huge number of Democrats simply won't go to the polls at all, including a majority of the black voters, and some might even turn out(like myself) to vote AGAINST Hillary.
My stance is this. I like Obama as a person, I like McCain as a person. Hillary I do not like. She is not a respectable person, and this campaign has proved it. Her victory's in Texas and Ohio were ENTIRELY because she went negative. If she wins, I know who I'll vote for in November. If he wins, I don't know. I really don't.
I don't feel, after McCain attempted to court Falwell, that I can trust him anymore. Much the same, Obama is a liberal, but the real fact of the matter is the Democrats are going to pick up more seats in the Senate and the House in this election. So whether or not Obama or McCain wins is rather irrelevant, since the Democrats could very well have a veto-proof majority come January.
My only concern would be a liberal president combined with a liberal congress. Which is a possibility, a possibility which is no better than a conservative president combined with a conservative congress. There must ALWAYS be a counter-weight.
Analysis on the potential of McCain/Guiliani in '08
I've posted this before but for the sake of Lenny I'm recapping, and also posting some disturbing insight.
There is a theory in political science, and also in the realm of history, which I prefer to call the 'prophecy', simply because..let's face it, that's just way cooler.
This theory is known as the Democratic Timeline, it's the FACT that every single democracy to ever exist in the history of civilization has followed a specific course of events that inevitably led to their abandoning democracy for the trappings of despotism, for those who don't understand big words, dictatorship.
This theory is based on slothness among the populace, and the inevitability that power corrupts. It goes like this: every democracy initially established is almost a libertarian paradise, the government has very little power, and can do very little, however as time goes on a crisis arises which, when looking for someone to blame, the people are forced to blame their governments lack of resources or ability rather than society itself thus they vote more powers to the government, more abilities, and inevitably your worst nightmare, taxes. As time goes on the government gets larger and larger and every crisis it fails to fend off is yet more and more reason that the government simply needs to be stronger, and not that society in general is a twat. Inevitably a dramatic crisis comes along which massively extends the powers of government farther then they had ever been extended before. Ft. Sumter, Pearl Harbor, 9/11. Each event pushes the government further away from liberty and closer to despotism, with more and more power centralized into the hands of only one man.
The democratic timeline follows that eventually the state reaches a point of 'bondage', wherein the society itself is dependent upon the government to exist. If, in this point of bondage, the government were to be vaporized in the blink of an eye society as they know it would cease to be. Chaos would ensue.
We, in 2008, as a result of WW2 and the finishing blow of 9/11, are in a state of bondage. American society cannot exist without the government.
Now here's the kicker, I posted some time ago about this timeline because in reviewing it I lost interest in Guiliani, whom I had been supporting since before he threw his hat in the ring. The timeline goes that inevitably another crisis will occur, and a strong, powerful man will usher us from bondage into tyranny, and as they put so eloquently in star wars 'So this is how democracy dies? With thunderous applause.'
Guiliani has a record of being one of the most iron-fisted elected officials, and he's running strictly on the record of 'I saved you in a time of crisis'.
So now here's where things get so creepy that, yes, I will vote for Hillary.
McCain referred to him as his right hand, IF McCain picks Guiliani as his running mate, that puts the one man who seems most fit to end democracy one gunshot away from doing it..
One last thing to factor in, the Mayan calender ends in December 2012. Whoever is elected this round's term will end in December 2012.
There is a theory in political science, and also in the realm of history, which I prefer to call the 'prophecy', simply because..let's face it, that's just way cooler.
This theory is known as the Democratic Timeline, it's the FACT that every single democracy to ever exist in the history of civilization has followed a specific course of events that inevitably led to their abandoning democracy for the trappings of despotism, for those who don't understand big words, dictatorship.
This theory is based on slothness among the populace, and the inevitability that power corrupts. It goes like this: every democracy initially established is almost a libertarian paradise, the government has very little power, and can do very little, however as time goes on a crisis arises which, when looking for someone to blame, the people are forced to blame their governments lack of resources or ability rather than society itself thus they vote more powers to the government, more abilities, and inevitably your worst nightmare, taxes. As time goes on the government gets larger and larger and every crisis it fails to fend off is yet more and more reason that the government simply needs to be stronger, and not that society in general is a twat. Inevitably a dramatic crisis comes along which massively extends the powers of government farther then they had ever been extended before. Ft. Sumter, Pearl Harbor, 9/11. Each event pushes the government further away from liberty and closer to despotism, with more and more power centralized into the hands of only one man.
The democratic timeline follows that eventually the state reaches a point of 'bondage', wherein the society itself is dependent upon the government to exist. If, in this point of bondage, the government were to be vaporized in the blink of an eye society as they know it would cease to be. Chaos would ensue.
We, in 2008, as a result of WW2 and the finishing blow of 9/11, are in a state of bondage. American society cannot exist without the government.
Now here's the kicker, I posted some time ago about this timeline because in reviewing it I lost interest in Guiliani, whom I had been supporting since before he threw his hat in the ring. The timeline goes that inevitably another crisis will occur, and a strong, powerful man will usher us from bondage into tyranny, and as they put so eloquently in star wars 'So this is how democracy dies? With thunderous applause.'
Guiliani has a record of being one of the most iron-fisted elected officials, and he's running strictly on the record of 'I saved you in a time of crisis'.
So now here's where things get so creepy that, yes, I will vote for Hillary.
McCain referred to him as his right hand, IF McCain picks Guiliani as his running mate, that puts the one man who seems most fit to end democracy one gunshot away from doing it..
One last thing to factor in, the Mayan calender ends in December 2012. Whoever is elected this round's term will end in December 2012.
Pre-Florida, predicting the GOP's future '08
I wanted to take the time, as we now approach the narrowing of the field, to address the matter of the future of the Republican Party. The USA Today had an interesting article which hadn't really dawned on me all that much, but the fact of the matter is that the President dictates policy, whomever a party nominates is the standard bearer of the party, and therefor dictates its policy. Now..this is irrelevant if that standard bearer loses, IE John Kerry, but if that nominee wins he can completely reshape his party(IE Bush).
For the Democrats, as much as Obama likes to pretend he's change the fact is he's pretty much on par with the party establishment's platform, Obama won't be any different than Hillary. There, I said it, are you happy?
The Republicans..however...are essentially choosing between different wings of their party:
John McCain- McCain represents a wing of the party which isn't very concerned with domestic affairs. People in his line of thinking have a tendency to be more liberal on social issues but they're able to balance it with tough foreign policy stances and in general hawkish views. McCain is the only candidate in the entire field that is pro-war. If elected he will most likely knock social issues out of the forefront, you won't see a debate between McCain and the DNC nominee about Abortion or gay marriage, because the fact is they'll agree on it, but by god don't let them get started on Iran! A McCain GOP will see an end to the party's tradition of dove policies, that Bush helped break down. McCain would be to 08 what Humphrey was to 68, if Humphrey had Kennedy's appeal, minus the bullet wound.
Rudy Guiliani- My original favorite, whom I am now more fond of referencing in the phrase 'Fulfill the prophecy! Elect Rudy!', that being the simple matter is that Rudy represents the wing of the party which has a great fondness for the rod. If McCain is a hawk, Rudy is a B-52. The man is running on 9/11 and the fact that he would love to bomb something to hell, and he'd like you to elect him so he can do that. I like Rudy for the fact that despite all his faults, he IS a liberal Republican, but the primary fault he has is the fact that he'll end the world. I'm keen on the world, I'd like it to last a little while longer.
Mike Huckabee- Huckabee, for all his wit, charm, and Kevin Spacey look-alike contest trophies, is unarguably the embodiment of my own disillusionment with the GOP. What's wrong with the GOP of today is that it's abandoned it's ways of small government in order to embrace a bizzare tight-rope act of being big government on one hand and small government on the other. This is an act that Reagan started and every president since has followed through with. The fact of the matter is this, whether you like it or not: Banning abortion is BIG government, censoring crude material is BIG government, banning gay marriage or in any way legislating it at all is BIG government. Social issues in general lead to big government if they are dealt with, small government advocates leaving them the fuck alone so SOCIETY can sort them out. Huckabee, if elected, would lead the GOP down a path I certainly wouldn't follow. He has a bad record on taxes in Arkansas, and while I DO like his plan to abolish the income tax and replace it with a sales tax...he's not reliable on taxes. A Huckabee GOP would see a closer shift towards the evangelical wing of the party, that advocates higher spending and a more close-minded educational view. He'd be a good health and human resources secretary..no more, no less.
Ron Paul- My hero. Whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not, Ron Paul is the embodiment of what the GOP was founded on, his platform is the old GOP platform, and by god I love him for it. If elected, we would see the GOP take on a more liberal turn towards the days of Nixon and Ford, before Reagan had to go and confuse everyone.
Mitt Romney- Status Quo. This guy is pretty much the Average Joe. He's your regular run of the mill Republican. He's from a political dynasty in a traditionally Republican state, he's a businessman who can finance his own campaign, and he flip flops on the issues depending on who he has to cater to for votes. Yep, average. He appeals mostly to the fiscal conservative base of the party, the ones that acknowledge that Ron Paul is entirely too psychotic to be president, but who don't trust Rudy or John enough on fiscal matters, and also don't believe that Mormons are a cult(IE Huckabee supporters). However, his Mormon ways are confusing and I don't understand them, therefor I can only assume he'll send us all to hell.
Here's some minor extra points:
1-Leaders of the major Evangelical movements have suggested that if someone like McCain or Rudy were nominated they would seek to set up an alternative pro-life third party candidate, essentially guaranteeing a Democratic victory because in 08 being Pro-Choice is like being in favor of equality in 68 -_-
2-Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has threatened several times that if a status quo candidate is elected in both parties, he will run on his own third party bid. Fact of the matter is Hillary and Obama are status quo, and so is Romney. Oh shit?
For the Democrats, as much as Obama likes to pretend he's change the fact is he's pretty much on par with the party establishment's platform, Obama won't be any different than Hillary. There, I said it, are you happy?
The Republicans..however...are essentially choosing between different wings of their party:
John McCain- McCain represents a wing of the party which isn't very concerned with domestic affairs. People in his line of thinking have a tendency to be more liberal on social issues but they're able to balance it with tough foreign policy stances and in general hawkish views. McCain is the only candidate in the entire field that is pro-war. If elected he will most likely knock social issues out of the forefront, you won't see a debate between McCain and the DNC nominee about Abortion or gay marriage, because the fact is they'll agree on it, but by god don't let them get started on Iran! A McCain GOP will see an end to the party's tradition of dove policies, that Bush helped break down. McCain would be to 08 what Humphrey was to 68, if Humphrey had Kennedy's appeal, minus the bullet wound.
Rudy Guiliani- My original favorite, whom I am now more fond of referencing in the phrase 'Fulfill the prophecy! Elect Rudy!', that being the simple matter is that Rudy represents the wing of the party which has a great fondness for the rod. If McCain is a hawk, Rudy is a B-52. The man is running on 9/11 and the fact that he would love to bomb something to hell, and he'd like you to elect him so he can do that. I like Rudy for the fact that despite all his faults, he IS a liberal Republican, but the primary fault he has is the fact that he'll end the world. I'm keen on the world, I'd like it to last a little while longer.
Mike Huckabee- Huckabee, for all his wit, charm, and Kevin Spacey look-alike contest trophies, is unarguably the embodiment of my own disillusionment with the GOP. What's wrong with the GOP of today is that it's abandoned it's ways of small government in order to embrace a bizzare tight-rope act of being big government on one hand and small government on the other. This is an act that Reagan started and every president since has followed through with. The fact of the matter is this, whether you like it or not: Banning abortion is BIG government, censoring crude material is BIG government, banning gay marriage or in any way legislating it at all is BIG government. Social issues in general lead to big government if they are dealt with, small government advocates leaving them the fuck alone so SOCIETY can sort them out. Huckabee, if elected, would lead the GOP down a path I certainly wouldn't follow. He has a bad record on taxes in Arkansas, and while I DO like his plan to abolish the income tax and replace it with a sales tax...he's not reliable on taxes. A Huckabee GOP would see a closer shift towards the evangelical wing of the party, that advocates higher spending and a more close-minded educational view. He'd be a good health and human resources secretary..no more, no less.
Ron Paul- My hero. Whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not, Ron Paul is the embodiment of what the GOP was founded on, his platform is the old GOP platform, and by god I love him for it. If elected, we would see the GOP take on a more liberal turn towards the days of Nixon and Ford, before Reagan had to go and confuse everyone.
Mitt Romney- Status Quo. This guy is pretty much the Average Joe. He's your regular run of the mill Republican. He's from a political dynasty in a traditionally Republican state, he's a businessman who can finance his own campaign, and he flip flops on the issues depending on who he has to cater to for votes. Yep, average. He appeals mostly to the fiscal conservative base of the party, the ones that acknowledge that Ron Paul is entirely too psychotic to be president, but who don't trust Rudy or John enough on fiscal matters, and also don't believe that Mormons are a cult(IE Huckabee supporters). However, his Mormon ways are confusing and I don't understand them, therefor I can only assume he'll send us all to hell.
Here's some minor extra points:
1-Leaders of the major Evangelical movements have suggested that if someone like McCain or Rudy were nominated they would seek to set up an alternative pro-life third party candidate, essentially guaranteeing a Democratic victory because in 08 being Pro-Choice is like being in favor of equality in 68 -_-
2-Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has threatened several times that if a status quo candidate is elected in both parties, he will run on his own third party bid. Fact of the matter is Hillary and Obama are status quo, and so is Romney. Oh shit?
Pre-NH '08 Analysis
So here we are now on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, the first primary of the nation, and the second real test of the electability of the candidates.
Before I get to predictions, or briefings for the uninformed, or recapping whats at stake in this competition, I will touch on the state itself.
The majority of regular observers to the political circus presumably don't understand why NH is the first primary in the nation, and for that matter would even argue that it SHOULDN'T be, it's a predominantly white, predominantly well to do state.
Two reasons I will give excluding it's constitutional clause that it be the first in the nation, the state has the smallest population of any state in the country. Even Montana has more people than the Granite state. Why is that a good reason for an election? After all, that's a small number of people, why should so few be allowed to decide something so important?
Because in New Hampshire, you can't buy the election, you can't just shovel load after load of cash into the state with TV ads like in California or Florida and pull off a victory, in New Hampshire not only do you HAVE to get down on the ground and campaign, if you don't it's precedent that you WILL lose, the candidates who most vigorously campaign in the state traditionally win it, for one because the voters respect them for doing so, but also because it really lets the people get to know the issues, a New Hampshire voter will have presumably met SOMEONE at least once, where as when I go to vote in May I'll have never once seen any of these schmuck bastards. Actually when I go to vote it'll most likely already be decided for me, but..still.
Reason number two is the lesser known reason, the Free State Project. A couple years ago the thinkers behind the Libertarian movement in this country decided that the only real logical way to make an impact in this country would be to consolidate our numbers into a single state, the state they chose was an already libertarian-leaning state, which happens to also have the first primary in the nation, New Hampshire.
So..why does that matter? It doesn't for the Democrats, and so I will concede that maybe the Democrats could move a primary ahead of them, like Nevada, but for the Republicans it is crucial for the contests to bounce from Iowa and then to New Hampshire, if anything maybe New Hampshire should be first, but I digress. This is because the two dominant wings of the Republican party are the Evangelicals(socially conservative) and the Libertarians(fiscally conservative), the two tend to disagree on social issues primarily on the basis that I, a libertarian, believe in small government no matter what the issue, from spending, taxation, social security, or abortion or gay marriage. In my book if it's an issue that doesn't involve the military, it's a state's issue and thus shouldn't be touched by the feds. This can be construed as me being 'pro-choice', 'pro-gay marriage', and all sorts of fun liberal things which I am, in fact, not. For the record, I am pro-life, pro-civil union, anti-gun control, and...those are the 3 hot button issues I can think of right now, but if you've got any questions feel free to ask.
Now, moving on to the race itself.
DNC:
There's no doubting this one, no skipping around it or beating this bush, Hillary Clinton must win New Hampshire. If she loses to Obama here it will be the end for her. A defeat in New Hampshire will mean a defeat in South Carolina because(the ironic thing), black voters have mostly been backing Hillary because they're uneasy about supporting Obama just yet, black candidates traditionally had huge support until they were tested in the all-white first caucus and first primary's and then lost huge, and election after election with Al Sharpton disappointing them the black demographic is pretty uneasy about supporting yet another 'great black hope', the black vote has been backing Hillary up until now, if she loses New Hampshire, Obama will have proven he can defeat her, and will have no trouble winning over the predominantly black South Carolina primary. For Hillary to win she has to do what she has so far failed to do(and this is why it's ironic), she has to get the woman vote. Obama cleaned her clock in Iowa outpolling her among women aged 18-59, AKA people who aren't dependent on social security or welfare. It won't be easy, but she can do it. But if she doesn't than this will be the end of Hillary, no doubts about that.
For Edwards on the other hand, if he could somehow pull an upset here and win, god only knows what might happen, but at this point it's looking like a mirror of Iowa, Obama is going to win big, Edwards and Hillary will be in a close tie for second. Richardson? Forget about him, he's not even polling well in Nevada.
RNC:
Rather then just give a synopsis I'll go down person to person-
Romney-This is a must win. No questions, if Romney can't win in New Hampshire, a state that he owns a second house in, then expect him to likely call it quits. New Hampshire was supposed to be a given for him, but defeat in Iowa and how much it cost him has done a lot of damage to his campaign, he was considered a shoe-in for Iowa, and a nobody like Huckabee stole it from him. If he couldn't beat Huckabee, Republicans and Independents will have to wonder how he can Obama or Hillary.
McCain-He has to win. He's the equivalent of the 'returning champion', he's got all his eggs stacked in New Hampshire just like Huckabee did in Iowa, if McCain can't win it here then he can't win it anywhere. He's come back in the polls after Romney's defeat in Iowa, but this race is by no means over, anything could happen.
Thompson-If he comes in third it could very well be a biblical miracle. He was hyped as the next Reagan, don't forget even Reagan couldn't win here. New Hampshire doesn't like social conservatives. Thompson is trying to take the approach of doing absolutely nothing and just presuming that if he stays in the race until the Southern primaries then he'll win. South Carolina is his first test, he's presumably sleeping through the other contests prior to it.
Giuliani-While he'd like to win here, Rudy is pegging his efforts on the 'shoveling loads of money into tv' approach and stacking everything on Super Tuesday in February, when roughly half of all the primaries open their polls. The question is can Rudy maintain enough support until then? Third place, if he's lucky.
Huckabee-If he can pull off third place here, beating one of the many many liberal Republicans that are on this ballot, it would be a huge victory. He won't win here and he knows that, but if he can at least get third then he can maintain momentum into South Carolina where his next real test will come.
Paul-Ron Paul is my favorite, personally, but that's because he IS a Libertarian, and what's that I mentioned earlier? The FSP will make this more interesting then people let on, and it's perfectly possible that Ron Paul could pull off third place, but if he doesn't pull it off with a big enough number it's not going to matter. He's got a lot of grass roots support, and there's really just no telling what his presence could mean, but I can safely say that if not for the fact that the three front runners right now(Giuliani, Romney, and McCain) are all liberal Republicans, closer to the center than Ron Paul, he would actually have a lot more of a following.
Hunter-Who is he, you ask? Who cares, better question is why hasn't he dropped out yet.
Before I get to predictions, or briefings for the uninformed, or recapping whats at stake in this competition, I will touch on the state itself.
The majority of regular observers to the political circus presumably don't understand why NH is the first primary in the nation, and for that matter would even argue that it SHOULDN'T be, it's a predominantly white, predominantly well to do state.
Two reasons I will give excluding it's constitutional clause that it be the first in the nation, the state has the smallest population of any state in the country. Even Montana has more people than the Granite state. Why is that a good reason for an election? After all, that's a small number of people, why should so few be allowed to decide something so important?
Because in New Hampshire, you can't buy the election, you can't just shovel load after load of cash into the state with TV ads like in California or Florida and pull off a victory, in New Hampshire not only do you HAVE to get down on the ground and campaign, if you don't it's precedent that you WILL lose, the candidates who most vigorously campaign in the state traditionally win it, for one because the voters respect them for doing so, but also because it really lets the people get to know the issues, a New Hampshire voter will have presumably met SOMEONE at least once, where as when I go to vote in May I'll have never once seen any of these schmuck bastards. Actually when I go to vote it'll most likely already be decided for me, but..still.
Reason number two is the lesser known reason, the Free State Project. A couple years ago the thinkers behind the Libertarian movement in this country decided that the only real logical way to make an impact in this country would be to consolidate our numbers into a single state, the state they chose was an already libertarian-leaning state, which happens to also have the first primary in the nation, New Hampshire.
So..why does that matter? It doesn't for the Democrats, and so I will concede that maybe the Democrats could move a primary ahead of them, like Nevada, but for the Republicans it is crucial for the contests to bounce from Iowa and then to New Hampshire, if anything maybe New Hampshire should be first, but I digress. This is because the two dominant wings of the Republican party are the Evangelicals(socially conservative) and the Libertarians(fiscally conservative), the two tend to disagree on social issues primarily on the basis that I, a libertarian, believe in small government no matter what the issue, from spending, taxation, social security, or abortion or gay marriage. In my book if it's an issue that doesn't involve the military, it's a state's issue and thus shouldn't be touched by the feds. This can be construed as me being 'pro-choice', 'pro-gay marriage', and all sorts of fun liberal things which I am, in fact, not. For the record, I am pro-life, pro-civil union, anti-gun control, and...those are the 3 hot button issues I can think of right now, but if you've got any questions feel free to ask.
Now, moving on to the race itself.
DNC:
There's no doubting this one, no skipping around it or beating this bush, Hillary Clinton must win New Hampshire. If she loses to Obama here it will be the end for her. A defeat in New Hampshire will mean a defeat in South Carolina because(the ironic thing), black voters have mostly been backing Hillary because they're uneasy about supporting Obama just yet, black candidates traditionally had huge support until they were tested in the all-white first caucus and first primary's and then lost huge, and election after election with Al Sharpton disappointing them the black demographic is pretty uneasy about supporting yet another 'great black hope', the black vote has been backing Hillary up until now, if she loses New Hampshire, Obama will have proven he can defeat her, and will have no trouble winning over the predominantly black South Carolina primary. For Hillary to win she has to do what she has so far failed to do(and this is why it's ironic), she has to get the woman vote. Obama cleaned her clock in Iowa outpolling her among women aged 18-59, AKA people who aren't dependent on social security or welfare. It won't be easy, but she can do it. But if she doesn't than this will be the end of Hillary, no doubts about that.
For Edwards on the other hand, if he could somehow pull an upset here and win, god only knows what might happen, but at this point it's looking like a mirror of Iowa, Obama is going to win big, Edwards and Hillary will be in a close tie for second. Richardson? Forget about him, he's not even polling well in Nevada.
RNC:
Rather then just give a synopsis I'll go down person to person-
Romney-This is a must win. No questions, if Romney can't win in New Hampshire, a state that he owns a second house in, then expect him to likely call it quits. New Hampshire was supposed to be a given for him, but defeat in Iowa and how much it cost him has done a lot of damage to his campaign, he was considered a shoe-in for Iowa, and a nobody like Huckabee stole it from him. If he couldn't beat Huckabee, Republicans and Independents will have to wonder how he can Obama or Hillary.
McCain-He has to win. He's the equivalent of the 'returning champion', he's got all his eggs stacked in New Hampshire just like Huckabee did in Iowa, if McCain can't win it here then he can't win it anywhere. He's come back in the polls after Romney's defeat in Iowa, but this race is by no means over, anything could happen.
Thompson-If he comes in third it could very well be a biblical miracle. He was hyped as the next Reagan, don't forget even Reagan couldn't win here. New Hampshire doesn't like social conservatives. Thompson is trying to take the approach of doing absolutely nothing and just presuming that if he stays in the race until the Southern primaries then he'll win. South Carolina is his first test, he's presumably sleeping through the other contests prior to it.
Giuliani-While he'd like to win here, Rudy is pegging his efforts on the 'shoveling loads of money into tv' approach and stacking everything on Super Tuesday in February, when roughly half of all the primaries open their polls. The question is can Rudy maintain enough support until then? Third place, if he's lucky.
Huckabee-If he can pull off third place here, beating one of the many many liberal Republicans that are on this ballot, it would be a huge victory. He won't win here and he knows that, but if he can at least get third then he can maintain momentum into South Carolina where his next real test will come.
Paul-Ron Paul is my favorite, personally, but that's because he IS a Libertarian, and what's that I mentioned earlier? The FSP will make this more interesting then people let on, and it's perfectly possible that Ron Paul could pull off third place, but if he doesn't pull it off with a big enough number it's not going to matter. He's got a lot of grass roots support, and there's really just no telling what his presence could mean, but I can safely say that if not for the fact that the three front runners right now(Giuliani, Romney, and McCain) are all liberal Republicans, closer to the center than Ron Paul, he would actually have a lot more of a following.
Hunter-Who is he, you ask? Who cares, better question is why hasn't he dropped out yet.
Pre-Iowa '08 Analysis
Well, it's been well over a year since we've started watching the presidential race. I personally haven't watched a debate in months, concluding that they really don't have anything else to say(seriously, how many times can you have a debate between the same people in such short an amount of time?)
But at long last tomorrow is the Iowa primary, the first real test of the candidates. For some candidates, victory is required, without victory they will have disappointed their supporters(Hillary and Romney), for others a victory would be proof that they can be a serious contender, while a second place victory would meet the expectations of their supporters(Obama and Huckabee). Quite frankly, if the tickets should turn out to be anything other than Hillary/Obama and Romney/Huckabee in first and second places respectively then this race will be a REAL race. Romney has invested the most time in Iowa out of the front runners and a defeat to Huckabee would be a serious blow to his campaign and could hurt him in New Hampshire, while Guiliani making anything above third place would be a boost for him because he had given up on the state, much the same if Ron Paul were to finish in third with anything resembling a close margin it could be a boost for him.
For the Democrats, Hillary has to win, Iowa is heavy on union support and if Hillary loses Iowa it will most likely be the beginning of the end, but in a lot of ways so too must Obama and Edwards, if Obama or Hillary were to somehow finish in Third and Edwards in second or(dare I say?) first it could be Edwards real chance, a second place finish would boost his ticket but he had second place in 2004 too, it's almost expected that he'll get at least second place among his supporters and if he doesn't it will likely be the end.
Reality of the situation is for Iowa it won't impact the Republican field much, while Romney has invested the most time there he is the least likely to win for the simple fact that he's a Mormon and Iowa's Republicans are traditional conservatives(the kind that hate what they don't understand). That means that while polls do give Huckabee the likely victory a bit late, unless he actually gets the victory it won't help him that much because it's anticipated that he WILL win, but he has to have a victory for any kind of impact on the field. However, that impact won't be felt by Romney who is almost guaranteed to win New Hampshire, so regardless of which of the two gets the victory in Iowa, it will be irrelevant unless Romney should somehow lose New Hampshire to Guiliani. If Romney loses both then we will see a change, New Hampshire is a must win for Guiliani but he was DoA in Iowa, so it won't impact his campaign any if he has a third place or even worse, so long as he beats Paul he should be fine.
The Democrats on the other hand have a three-way must-win race. All three of them HAVE to pick up the victory in order to succeed, all three of them anticipate victory, but only one of them can win. Hillary is the favorite, naturally, but Hillary's lead has dwindled since the start of the race. If the Democrats are smart she won't win, but you never really know. One thing I've observed from Democrats is they tend to..well..do what they're supposed to do in Primaries, voting for whomever most ideally represents the party, regardless of how likely they are to win the general election.
Before someone randomly replies with some garbage about Hillary, just keep in mind that it's unlikely that ANY candidate can win an election when most of their name recognition is negative press, and while any press is good press, Hillary entered the campaign with a 50% disapproval rating.
Now I'll leave this blog with a point that I've made to people several times as of late:
The 2008 election is irrelevant. I might not even vote. Why is this election irrelevant? Because the Democrats won and they won big in 2006. I'm not saying the Democrats will win big again in 2008, on the contrary right now it's anyones game, what I'm saying is that if you think this election matters you either don't know how this country runs or you aren't aware of the terms that are coming up in the next four years. In 2008 and 2010 there are more Republican senators up for reelection than there are Democrats, in both elections the Republicans have an up-hill battle to MAINTAIN their minority, in fact it's a possibility that the Democrats could strengthen their majority to a veto proof margin.
Now, granted if we have a 60+ Democratic caucus in the senate AND a Democrat president who knows how to work the system(IE a senator or former senator, coincidentally the worst kind of presidential candidate and ironically the three front runners amongst the Democrats all are..) then this election would matter because that would allow for the Democrats to do anything that they wanted, provided they could agree to it, but such a huge Democratic victory in 2008 isn't likely. It's possible in the presidential election but not in the senate, it would require a national landslide.
Frankly, speaking from an unbiased position, it's best for this country if a Republican like Romney wins, someone who is used to dealing with the opposition controlling the majority, and if Romney can make that position very clear than he could probably win.
If a Democrat wins, we'll have nothing different than what we had from 2000-2006, whether you like it or not power corrupts, and the Democrats are no different than the Republicans when it comes to power, and if they're allowed control of both branches they'll do nothing more than attempt to exact the revenge that the far left feels they deserve.
And that is exactly what the Republicans did when they got control of both branches, and that is why they fell in 2006.
But at long last tomorrow is the Iowa primary, the first real test of the candidates. For some candidates, victory is required, without victory they will have disappointed their supporters(Hillary and Romney), for others a victory would be proof that they can be a serious contender, while a second place victory would meet the expectations of their supporters(Obama and Huckabee). Quite frankly, if the tickets should turn out to be anything other than Hillary/Obama and Romney/Huckabee in first and second places respectively then this race will be a REAL race. Romney has invested the most time in Iowa out of the front runners and a defeat to Huckabee would be a serious blow to his campaign and could hurt him in New Hampshire, while Guiliani making anything above third place would be a boost for him because he had given up on the state, much the same if Ron Paul were to finish in third with anything resembling a close margin it could be a boost for him.
For the Democrats, Hillary has to win, Iowa is heavy on union support and if Hillary loses Iowa it will most likely be the beginning of the end, but in a lot of ways so too must Obama and Edwards, if Obama or Hillary were to somehow finish in Third and Edwards in second or(dare I say?) first it could be Edwards real chance, a second place finish would boost his ticket but he had second place in 2004 too, it's almost expected that he'll get at least second place among his supporters and if he doesn't it will likely be the end.
Reality of the situation is for Iowa it won't impact the Republican field much, while Romney has invested the most time there he is the least likely to win for the simple fact that he's a Mormon and Iowa's Republicans are traditional conservatives(the kind that hate what they don't understand). That means that while polls do give Huckabee the likely victory a bit late, unless he actually gets the victory it won't help him that much because it's anticipated that he WILL win, but he has to have a victory for any kind of impact on the field. However, that impact won't be felt by Romney who is almost guaranteed to win New Hampshire, so regardless of which of the two gets the victory in Iowa, it will be irrelevant unless Romney should somehow lose New Hampshire to Guiliani. If Romney loses both then we will see a change, New Hampshire is a must win for Guiliani but he was DoA in Iowa, so it won't impact his campaign any if he has a third place or even worse, so long as he beats Paul he should be fine.
The Democrats on the other hand have a three-way must-win race. All three of them HAVE to pick up the victory in order to succeed, all three of them anticipate victory, but only one of them can win. Hillary is the favorite, naturally, but Hillary's lead has dwindled since the start of the race. If the Democrats are smart she won't win, but you never really know. One thing I've observed from Democrats is they tend to..well..do what they're supposed to do in Primaries, voting for whomever most ideally represents the party, regardless of how likely they are to win the general election.
Before someone randomly replies with some garbage about Hillary, just keep in mind that it's unlikely that ANY candidate can win an election when most of their name recognition is negative press, and while any press is good press, Hillary entered the campaign with a 50% disapproval rating.
Now I'll leave this blog with a point that I've made to people several times as of late:
The 2008 election is irrelevant. I might not even vote. Why is this election irrelevant? Because the Democrats won and they won big in 2006. I'm not saying the Democrats will win big again in 2008, on the contrary right now it's anyones game, what I'm saying is that if you think this election matters you either don't know how this country runs or you aren't aware of the terms that are coming up in the next four years. In 2008 and 2010 there are more Republican senators up for reelection than there are Democrats, in both elections the Republicans have an up-hill battle to MAINTAIN their minority, in fact it's a possibility that the Democrats could strengthen their majority to a veto proof margin.
Now, granted if we have a 60+ Democratic caucus in the senate AND a Democrat president who knows how to work the system(IE a senator or former senator, coincidentally the worst kind of presidential candidate and ironically the three front runners amongst the Democrats all are..) then this election would matter because that would allow for the Democrats to do anything that they wanted, provided they could agree to it, but such a huge Democratic victory in 2008 isn't likely. It's possible in the presidential election but not in the senate, it would require a national landslide.
Frankly, speaking from an unbiased position, it's best for this country if a Republican like Romney wins, someone who is used to dealing with the opposition controlling the majority, and if Romney can make that position very clear than he could probably win.
If a Democrat wins, we'll have nothing different than what we had from 2000-2006, whether you like it or not power corrupts, and the Democrats are no different than the Republicans when it comes to power, and if they're allowed control of both branches they'll do nothing more than attempt to exact the revenge that the far left feels they deserve.
And that is exactly what the Republicans did when they got control of both branches, and that is why they fell in 2006.
Midterm '06 Analysis
This is an analysis I did prior to the '06 Midterm elections regarding races people weren't willing to call one way or the other. Summarizing the main issues with the three races, all three went the way my summarizations implied they would. VA and MO to the Democrats, and TN to the Republicans.
I know most of you don't care, but I wrote a general summarization of the three official 'toss-ups' in the senate race, democrats are now projected to have 49 seats to the republicans 48, and here are the three toss-ups
Virginia: Webb has trailed Allen forever but after macaca-gate and a general sucking of allen to be a good campaigner Webb is now actually pulling ahead of Allen the last three polls average webb with a 4 point lead ahead of allen, but this is still within the margin of error(+/- 3), the reason is actually because of Allen's own campaigns attempt to attack Webb's fictional writings, which has seemed to backfire. Do you really want a senator criticizing fictional novels? Censorship? That's what we have Hillary for.
Missouri: Talent is a general rubber-stamp for bush, but McKaskill hasn't exactly done a whole lot to distinguish herself, she's made her campaign about stem cells and jobs, and its actually starting to make progress, the two are, literally, tied, 48-48, but interestingly enough, the democrats have pulled a play straight out of the 2004 playbook of the GOP and on november 7th missourians will vote on a ballot initiative to promote stem cell research, which many are hoping will bring out more stem cell supporters, and in turn, more democrat votes
Tennessee: Harold Ford is, arguably, one of the most conservative Democrats to ever exist, pro-life, anti-gay, pro-gun, not only that, he's the heir to the most powerful democratic political family in tennessee, so why isn't this deeply entrenched southern democrat winning in a southern state? well the catch as always in american politics: Harold Ford, Jr. is black, furthermore he recently committed a gaff of painful proportions, remarking recently that the difference between democrats and republicans is 'republicans fear the lord, democrats fear AND love the lord' it seems in many ways Ford is making this race difficult for himself, which brings to question his ability to truely be a senator, his opponents attacks that haven't been racist have drawn strictly from Ford's own actions
I know most of you don't care, but I wrote a general summarization of the three official 'toss-ups' in the senate race, democrats are now projected to have 49 seats to the republicans 48, and here are the three toss-ups
Virginia: Webb has trailed Allen forever but after macaca-gate and a general sucking of allen to be a good campaigner Webb is now actually pulling ahead of Allen the last three polls average webb with a 4 point lead ahead of allen, but this is still within the margin of error(+/- 3), the reason is actually because of Allen's own campaigns attempt to attack Webb's fictional writings, which has seemed to backfire. Do you really want a senator criticizing fictional novels? Censorship? That's what we have Hillary for.
Missouri: Talent is a general rubber-stamp for bush, but McKaskill hasn't exactly done a whole lot to distinguish herself, she's made her campaign about stem cells and jobs, and its actually starting to make progress, the two are, literally, tied, 48-48, but interestingly enough, the democrats have pulled a play straight out of the 2004 playbook of the GOP and on november 7th missourians will vote on a ballot initiative to promote stem cell research, which many are hoping will bring out more stem cell supporters, and in turn, more democrat votes
Tennessee: Harold Ford is, arguably, one of the most conservative Democrats to ever exist, pro-life, anti-gay, pro-gun, not only that, he's the heir to the most powerful democratic political family in tennessee, so why isn't this deeply entrenched southern democrat winning in a southern state? well the catch as always in american politics: Harold Ford, Jr. is black, furthermore he recently committed a gaff of painful proportions, remarking recently that the difference between democrats and republicans is 'republicans fear the lord, democrats fear AND love the lord' it seems in many ways Ford is making this race difficult for himself, which brings to question his ability to truely be a senator, his opponents attacks that haven't been racist have drawn strictly from Ford's own actions
From the Mid-Terms '06
This is an op-ed I wrote in the midterm election of 2006 against former Rep. Alan Mollohan
Now who do I really want to throw the blame at for this? I want to blame everybody that I can blame by-god! But I’m not going to. The truth is, regardless of what frustrations many of us have towards our local government, none of them have been in office for twenty years. One man has sat in his office and watched the economic hopes and dreams of a generation fall by the way-side. One man has read the census bureau’s report every 10 years and found that the population of his state was falling more then any other state. The man who has sat idly by and watched his so-called ‘constituents’ suffer while he profits, is Alan Mollohan.
I blame Alan Mollohan because this problem in Marion County is not isolated, Marion County is one of the luckier counties in the 1st district, we’ve benefited to some small degree from the corruption of our representative, the non-profits that the FBI are now investigating reside in our county, they contribute to what little remains of our economy. The fact of the matter is Mollohan has done nothing for us, and he’s done even less for the rest of the 1st District! He was elected because his father let him have the position! Fellow Mountaineers, my brothers and sisters, do us all a favor on November 7th, and show America once and for all: West Virginia Votes for Progress, not for Patronage. A vote against Alan Mollohan, is a vote for progress.
Stephen Sundahl,
VP of College Republicans
Fairmont State University
It’s a general assumption that as time passes, most things and places generally tend to get better. Unless you have an infection or a neglected car, time is usually going to be good to you. For example, let’s say twenty years; most areas are going to improve by leaps and bounds in twenty years. As technology advances our lives are going to get better. But one region comes to mind immediately to me, as one which over twenty years has not improved.
Odds are if you’re reading this, then you live in that region. Yes, I’m talking about Marion County. The Census Bureau will tell you that the per capita income of Marion County is approximately $16,000. If you take that figure and apply basic math to it, you will find that the average resident of Marion County makes about $7.75 an hour. The good news is that means it doesn’t matter to us if the minimum wage goes up, we’re already making more than $7.50! The bad news is that a per capita measurement of income is nothing more than an average, the middle ground. The problem with this measurement comes when there are five or six really high-paid lawyers in this county who throw the whole thing way off course. Odds are you don’t make $7.75 an hour if you’re reading this. Now who do I really want to throw the blame at for this? I want to blame everybody that I can blame by-god! But I’m not going to. The truth is, regardless of what frustrations many of us have towards our local government, none of them have been in office for twenty years. One man has sat in his office and watched the economic hopes and dreams of a generation fall by the way-side. One man has read the census bureau’s report every 10 years and found that the population of his state was falling more then any other state. The man who has sat idly by and watched his so-called ‘constituents’ suffer while he profits, is Alan Mollohan.
I blame Alan Mollohan because this problem in Marion County is not isolated, Marion County is one of the luckier counties in the 1st district, we’ve benefited to some small degree from the corruption of our representative, the non-profits that the FBI are now investigating reside in our county, they contribute to what little remains of our economy. The fact of the matter is Mollohan has done nothing for us, and he’s done even less for the rest of the 1st District! He was elected because his father let him have the position! Fellow Mountaineers, my brothers and sisters, do us all a favor on November 7th, and show America once and for all: West Virginia Votes for Progress, not for Patronage. A vote against Alan Mollohan, is a vote for progress.
Stephen Sundahl,
VP of College Republicans
Fairmont State University
Under Construction o.O
Will upload most if not all of my politically relevant facebook notes made over the last 6 years to here in a few days. Need a centralized location for everything.
Bare with me.
Bare with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)