Sunday, December 30, 2007
Maybe he has Rudy Giuliani - Hillary Clinton lust. No, not in the way John Edwards would smirk at, but in the way that he's the only leading New Yorker (OK, Hillary's an import, we know, but no one cares) without a White House run. Stephen Forbes had a shot, but not Mikey.
Mikey wants some too.
Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President
Saturday, December 29, 2007
A similar crying was heard when George Bush was re-elected, and in his second election, captured more popular votes that Reagan, Clinton, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy. He beat them all. And, the world did not end.
What will change? Nothing. Lots of "A new era for women," hogwash. True, yes, but significant? No. If she's a bad president, it'll not be anything new. We aren't voting in a gender, we are voting in a president.
Just look at Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as an example. We cheered that a woman was now in the office of Speaker of the House. Male dominated until then. She's not as useless as "Year of the Woman" Carol Mosely Braun, but Democrats are hardly enamored with her incompetence. George Bush still gets what he wants, and the Dems no longer have Denny Hastert to kick around.
Take a look deeper at Hillary. Those who hate her, like those who hate Bush, hate her, in part, because she leads a machine that gets things done. Granted, just like comrade Barack Obama, she's been doing more running for president than serving as a state senator, but laziness, unintelligence, and ineffectiveness are not part of her lifestyle. Type A, not a slacker. Like Chicago's Daley machine, things would work.
There are real issues, like her views, to consider. However, she will not create more abortions, impact capital punishment either way, smoke pot, and scandals with pages and interns? You gotta be kidding.
Hillary's smart, and hard working. Most, if not all, candidates are, but few will disagree, when it comes to doing well on SATs, she'd be up there.
Iraq? Don't think for a minute electing her provides a carte blanche pull-out. Congress still has to approve things. Also, when she, or whomever, hits office, she will be provided with data regarding terrorism and such that ordinary senators never see. Will it influence to stay? Who knows, but it is possible. I do not think George Bush sent our boys in there to lose.
The end of the world as we know it? Great song by REM, but nothing more.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Now, your job, dear reader, is to check out one guy's two blogs. A very intelligent poster, and good guy all around. He challenges me, and though I don't respond to every one of his responses, I am left thinking.
Two salutes for @bdul muHib
Jr. Ringer T-Shirt$17.09
Long Sleeve T-Shirt$19.09
Women's Dark T-Shirt$20.09
Women's Plus Size V-Neck T-Shirt$25.09
Jr. Spaghetti Tank$17.09
Women's Raglan Hoodie$27.09
Long Sleeve Dark T-Shirt$24.09
Organic Cotton Tee$17.09
Women's Cap Sleeve T-Shirt$16.09
Women's Long Sleeve Dark T-Shirt$24.09
Maternity Dark T-Shirt$24.09
Women's Long Sleeve T-Shirt$19.09
Men's Sleeveless Tee$15.09
Women's Light T-Shirt$15.09
Women's Plus Size Scoop Neck Dark T-Shirt$25.09
Women's Plus Size Scoop Neck T-Shirt$25.09
Women's V-Neck Dark T-Shirt$20.09
Women's V-Neck T-Shirt$16.09
Jr. Jersey T-Shirt$19.09
Women's Tank Top$15.09
Women's Plus Size V-Neck Dark T-Shirt$25.09
Kids Light T-Shirt$14.09
Kids Dark T-Shirt$19.09
Kids Baseball Jersey$14.09
prices subject to change
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Some candidates are devoutly Christian, others are politically and conveniently Christian. Some are 'fallen Christian'. Lots of denominations, from Catholic to Baptist to Methodist and beyond.
Some are Jewish, and naturally, not celebrating Christmas in the theological sense. Others are not believers in any god, and are just taking a day off.
A lot like America. We believe all kinds of things, and hopefully, are living out what we believe. We enjoy this freedom, and hopefully, we learn to tolerate others, no matter what they believe. We do not need to agree, but unlike countries like Iran and Sudan, we are able to live together in peace.
I am a Christian, and so can only wish Merry Christmas to those who believe. For those of you are not, I sincerely hope you have a good day filled with warmth and family memories in the making.
So, to Obama, Clinton? Huckabee? McCain, Rudy, Romney, Newt, Thompson, Dean, Kerry, Paul, and Edwards, and you... Merry Christmas (even to you, Osama bin Laden)
- for a lighter look: Bin Laden Urges Americans to Convert to Christianity (Only Jesus is Lord, He Cries Out!)
- for an analytical look: Christmas in Schools?
Monday, December 24, 2007
Barack Obama is coming on strong. With Oprah Winfrey now behind him, and the public growing vaguely cynical of the Hillary Clinton machine, she needs to be concerned. Furthermore, the Republicans aren't sitting on their hands. Mike Huckabee has snuck up from nowhere to present evangelicals an option other than social liberal Rudy Giuliani, and conservative but Mormon Mitt Romney. In any event, one of those three is likely to threaten the Hillary Clinton juggernaut.
The story is the same: get the nomination, get the national victory. And the story remains as difficult, hence, Hillary needs the fire power only glamor boy Bill can pull off.
Just add a saxophone.
Former president in town to promote wife for the job
Charles City Press
By Kirk Klocke, News Editor Both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were in Iowa this weekend, and the former president’s route included Charles City.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
There's a fight few expected, but just might be. As Obama's interest increases, and as Hillary keeps being presented as left wing, while Huckabee, previously a long-shot, starts coming into being his own candidate, while Rudy is being seen as a morally liberal, fiscally moderate conservative -- well, you can seem it is all becoming undone.
Who is this Mike Huckabee, anyway? He is a religious guy, same as fellow Arkansas ex-governor, Bill Clinton. The same denomination, only Huckabee is less ashamed to admit it. Like Clinton, he is a musician, playing bass guitar in his rock-and-roll band Capitol Offense.
Also from Hope, AR, he lifted himself up from little to much, again, like Clinton. But now, his views and lifestyle are much different than Clinton, both Bill and Hillary. He's different than all but Romney, and maybe Fred Thompson as well.
My bet is Pat Robertson is regretting the day he endorsed Rudy Giuliani, as it increasingly appears Huckabee might be the Republican's only hope for the White House.
As for Obama - the jury is still out, but it is no longer the Hillary Clinton Roadshow. She'll come back with guns blazing, so don't you Obama fans get smug. He can pull it out, but she'll not go down without a little dirt, and maybe a little blood on her hands.
Huckabee surges, hires Reagan's ex-campaign manager
AFP - 4 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Mike Huckabee was ahead in a poll out Friday among Republican presidential hopefuls in the key early primary state of South Carolina, ...
Huckabee, 'the next Reagan'? MSNBC
Rollins to lead Huckabee's effort MSNBC
Huckabee hires former Reagan adviser Boston Globe
Boston Herald - New York Times
all 185 news articles »
Obama Showing New Confidence With Iowa Sprint
New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY INDEPENDENCE, Iowa - After months of sometimes struggling with the demands of being a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama is showing a new command in the final weeks before the Iowa caucuses, threatening Senator Hillary Rodham ...
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Presently, Hillary is enjoying a gender novelty matter. Take away gender, which will not be an issue by 2012 either way, and things get much closer.
Meanwhile, Obama, safely serving again as an Illinois senator (something Illinoisans are not sure he's doing well), he'll remain high in the national eye, raising money, and paying his dues.
Poll Averages - Democrats
Sunday, November 18, 2007
How can we tell? More Democrats are talking about Pat Robertson's support of Rudy Giuliani than they are of the positive attributes of their own candidate. Democrats are scared here. If a leading right winger, one that some of the religious world considers seriously can support a prochoice, progay guy who dumped a wife or two, then who will vote for them?
They are shaking - and deservedly so. All we were hearing from the Democrats is "We hate the war," and "We hate Bush." Boring. Give us more. Since most evangelical Christians will not support the very liberal Clinton or Obama, no one expected their vote. However, this Robertson thing has shaken everything up. He pragmatically sounds more like Jesse Jackson than Jackson does.
As far as pot is concerned, who Woody Harrelson support? Who is in his kettle of candidates?
Obama accuses Clinton campaign of mud-slinging with Novak column
San Francisco Chronicle
The Democratic presidential race burst into its angriest brawl yet Saturday when Barack Obama charged Hillary Rodham Clinton with mud-slinging "swift boat" politics and intimidation - an accusation the New York senator sharply denied and said ...
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Christmas is not a secular holiday, even though a great number of people celebrate it as such. A day off of work, a chance to share time with families, and a sense that we should care more about those around are not important exclusively to those with faith, of course. But, 'Christ'mas is not the same as, say (hypothetically) "Good Will Toward Men" Day.
The question is: to what degree should government organizations, from the White House to the public library, tip their hat toward Christmas?
If the answer is "They should do nothing," then there should be work that day. Floating holidays aside, which cater to all beliefs or nonbeliefs, it cannot be a mandated holiday.
No Christmas parties. No gifts. No Christmas trees. Say what you like about the secular history of a Christmas tree, it is now only a Christmas tree. Nothing else. Put one up, and that's what it is.
If the answer is yes, then, this opens the door to every other religious holiday, including Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Hindu, and whatever other religions have at least one government employee present.
In each situation, the matter has absolutes, and progressions. To have 'X', in each case, there is a correlating 'Y'.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton is the most pro choice candidate in either party. Unlike her husband, Bill Clinton, she has not gone out of her way to dance, to say abortion is wrong but she supports the legal right to do it. For that, I give her points for integrity and honesty. For those in the abortion is murder camp, it must be illegal. They have no other choice, just in the same those who think capital punishment is morally wrong. And, for those who think it is acceptable legally, they cannot also say it is morally wrong to kill a baby. Logically, a person has really to choose one position of the other. Bill Clinton, as has Rudy Giuliani, taken both positions at once. Pretty much a cop-out.
Not Hillary Clinton. You won't hear pretend she thinks abortion is morally wrong. She's a pragmatist, but knows the double-view position is weak.
So then comes along a strong candidate like Giuliani. He's a darling among Republicans, and dangerous to Hillary Clinton. Why? Because his essential view on abortion equates with hers: keep abortion legal. She might have a more consistent view, but he will steal votes from abortion-minded Republicans.
Naturally, this is hardly the only issue driving the campaign, but in other areas, like perceived international leadership and dealing with Muslim terrorists, Giuliani trumps Clinton. I'm not the only who is noticing this. Leaders among a core group of evangelical voters agree, like those at the Family Research Council.
Meanwhile, Clinton is leading Barack Obama by truckloads of support. I'm beginning to think the election for him is over, and that he is running for 2012. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, but loses the general presidential election, Obama can position himself as a leader among men. By 2012, any comments about experience have no impact, and people will be used to his unusual name. He'll be a brand name to be reckoned with.
Conservative Christian leader equates Giuliani with Clinton
He says ex-mayor too much like New York senator, will doom GOP if nominated
10:43 PM CDT on Wednesday, October 10, 2007
By WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – A leading conservative Christian leader said Wednesday that Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Rodham Clinton are virtually "indistinguishable" to many social conservatives, and that those voters will abandon the GOP if Mr. Giuliani is the presidential nominee.
"There is very little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties when you look at advancing candidates like this," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
In a conference call with reporters to promote this month's Values Voter Summit in Washington, Mr. Perkins acknowledged that religious conservatives at the heart of the Republican base are divided over the party's presidential field.
But he warned that nominating the former New York mayor, who supports abortion rights and gay rights, would probably drive away enough anti-abortion voters to put Mrs. Clinton in the White House.
"Will evangelicals vote for him? Yes, there will be some," said Mr. Perkins. "But some social conservative support is not enough to win."
Thursday, September 13, 2007
9:01 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment.
In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq's young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.
Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.
The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.
Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad and Anbar province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds. And finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.
Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.
To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.
These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America's support. They pledged they would never allow al Qaeda to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar province put it this way: "Our tomorrow starts today."
The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show al Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children that we want for ours -- a decent life and a peaceful future.
In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today, one of the brave tribal sheikhs who helped lead the revolt against al Qaeda was murdered. In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: "We are determined to strike back and continue our work." And as they do, they can count on the continued support of the United States.
Throughout Iraq, too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads. And for most Iraqis, the quality of life is far from where it should be. Yet General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.
One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad's neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.
One year ago, much of Diyala province was a sanctuary for al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baqubah was emerging as an al Qaeda stronghold. Today, Baqubah is cleared. Diyala province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.
One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up, and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.
These gains are a tribute to our military, they are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi security forces, and they are the tribute to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists.
Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks -- and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.
Yet Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They're sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They're allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq's military or receive government pensions. Local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.
Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable -- although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police. Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations. And this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.
Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas. And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.
General Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.
I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefited from their advice, and I have accepted General Petraeus's recommendations. I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq, so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.
The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success." The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.
Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should begin bringing our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home. The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.
This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship -- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.
The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror -- and that will make us safer here at home.
Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.
If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare. Democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.
Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.
So tonight I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.
To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom, and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do, have confidence that America does not abandon our friends, and we will not abandon you.
To Iraq's neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.
To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all nations to help, by implementing the International Compact to revitalize Iraq's economy, by participating in the Neighbors Conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region, and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.
To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilians on the front lines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you. And the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your sacrifices, and the sacrifices of your families.
Earlier this year, I received an email from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their sorrow, they see larger purpose. His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote me this: "We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free."
This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stout, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.
Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.
Good night, and God bless America.
END 9:18 P.M. EDT
Friday, September 7, 2007
Osama bin Laden, denouncing his claim as the Living Prophet of the Church of Latter Day Terrorists, has himself converted to Christianity. Realizing murdering Americans as a proselytizing method, he has decided to pursue a more peaceful way.
Noting Billy Graham (http://www.bgea.org) is ill and no longer the evangelist he once was, and that he, bin Laden, is a young buck by comparison, taking up Graham's place at the pulpit would be an honor.
Comfortable in this new spiritual skin of his, he has publicly apologized to leading Jews, and to the Jewish community on the whole for what he called, "My infidelic ways," against God's chosen people. They warmly embraced him, and gave him Mel Gibson's phone number so they could discuss ideas for repairing relationships, and then shared some chicken soup.
Salt Lake City, the headquarters for the Morons (the popular name for the Church of Latter Day Terrorists) , had mixed feelings. They thought bin Laden's bombing on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, was poor form, but, they also knew his family life was built on "shaking sand and oil money." They went onto say he was a good recruiter, but was misguided. They wanted him involved in stem cell research, not terror cell development. It was their fault, they said, claiming they should not have expected a rich kid from the country of Sudan to know English well.
Bin Laden is scheduled to appear next week on CNNLive, Larry King and the 700 Club, with cameos on Jay Leno and Ellen. The Oprah Show could not confirm whether he would be on because of scheduling conflict with diet guru Bob Greene. They said they thought bin Laden would be a great guest, but Greene was going to be on with Martha Stewart to make a Rachel Ray inspired pork dish, and that, "You know Martha and Bob, they just have to have their pork."
Hillary Clinton's campaign bristled at the thought of another Christian in world leadership, while Barack Obama nodded his head, and with his big Tiger Woods-sized smile, said he thought the US should leave Iraq, and this just proves it. Louis Farrakhan shrugged, "Eh, you win some you lose some."
Saturday, August 25, 2007
He is already working against conservative voters with his pro-choice views, as well as his relatively complicit positions regarding gays. He stands by those views with conviction. He hasn't helped himself by his marital affairs and divorce. So he is doing what he needs to in order to win the conservative hearts: attack Hillary, and say, "I'm not a Democrat looking to weasel into your lives."
By ranting the tax-and-spend line, he is saying he is really Republican.
Hillary Clinton ranted back by saying Giuliani is just like her in many regards, but not enough to be presidential.
This is all vagaries now, jockeying for media image rather than real issues. Hillary needs to be seen as still the top contender, while Rudy must lift himself back to the top. Both candidates are facing questions of electability, followed by hard-charging competition in Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
Giuliani outlines tax plan, blasts Democrats
By Philip Elliott, AP Writer
August 25, 2007
MANCHESTER, N.H. --Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Saturday said Democrats would raise taxes and brutalize the economy if they win the 2008 presidential election.
"'We must take things away from you for the common good,'" Giuliani said, mocking Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a top contender for her party's nomination.
"Do you understand what that implies? No, it's not Karl Marx. What she's saying in that is that 'We know better, the government knows better.'"
In contrast, Giuliani said he would lower taxes, make permanent President Bush's tax cuts and eliminate inheritance taxes.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Which brings me to a point. Why not consider (at least) for every dollar you give to support your candidate (including T-shirt purchases, books as well as donations), you support and equal amount toward the local homeless mission nearest your home? I'm doing that. And, at least 10% of whatever my blog makes will go to a nonprofit charity.
Top candidates profit from book deals (Yahoo.com story)
Search Books by Your Favorite Politician
Hillary Rodham Clinton
The Reviews Are In: Hillary 'Rising Above'
'The Strongest,' 'Tough and Well Prepared'
ABC NEWS' RICK KLEIN – HILLARY 'RISING ABOVE THE REST OF THE FIELD': "Clinton still rising above the rest of the field -- why not, as long as you're leading in the polls?" [ABC News Political Radar, 8/19/07 ]
MARK HALPERIN 'I THINK SENATOR CLINTON ONCE AGAIN…WAS THE STRONGEST' [ABC Iowa 5, 8/19/07]
MSNBC'S DOMENICO MONTANARO – CLINTON WAS 'TOUGH AND WELL PREPARED' "Clinton was again solid, no gaffes as usual. She is tough and well prepared." [MSNBC, First Read, 8/19/07 ]
NEW YORK TIMES' KATHARINE SEELYE – A 'STANDOUT' ANSWER TO CLOSE THE DEBATE: "Mrs. Clinton, the last to speak, had more time to think about her answer and had the standout: 'I could not be standing here without the women's movement,' she said. It helped women and people of color become part of the American Dream. She paid homage to her mother, who never went to college, 'but gave me the belief that I could do whatever I set my mind to.'" [New York Times, 8/19/07 ]
WASHINGTON POST'S CHRIS CILLIZZA – HILLARY 'PUSHED BACK EFFECTIVELY' WHEN ATTACKED: "Clinton pushed back effectively by noting that 'we' (she and Bill Clinton presumably) had been fighting and beating back Republicans for more than a decade and that the idea that the GOP would not attack any candidate who was the Democratic nominee was naive." [Washington Post's The Fix, 8/19/07 ]
HUFFINGTON POST'S RACHEL SKLAR – HILLARY SOUNDS 'STRONG AND AUTHORITATIVE' ON IRAQ: Sklar commented on Clinton's response on withdrawing American troops in Iraq: "She sounds strong and authoritative here." [Huffington Post, 8/19/07 ]
HUFFINGTON POST'S GLYNNIS MACNICOL – 'HILLARY IS REALLY GOOD ON STAGE. SO POLISHED' [Huffington Post, 8/19/07 ]
Forbes reported this. So did lots of media. My guess, cynically, is that Hudson either thinks his blog matters, that he matters, or, is just trying to stir up interest in his blog so that he can garner PayPal and Google clicks.
Full disclosure here: I have similar links. Google ads, when clicked, make me money. Ones on Hudson's site get him a few cents. A dollar donation gets either of us a dollar as well.
Is Hudson threatened by Thompson's success? If his goal isn't the almighty dollar, then why else would he bother?
Self-importance? It could be. That's my motivation.
Think of this: With a Republican in the White House, Rush Limbaugh has less interesting things to talk about. He's not Republican, but he might as well be one their campaign leaders. With Nancy Pelosi in office, Limbaugh has a bit more, as he does by yucking up his grief of the Democrats who are running for office.
Could be Lane Hudson, despite mattering less to Democrats than Limbaugh matters to Republicans, is a wannabe. A one trick pony which no longer even has that trick. Remember whats-her-name, that woman pretending to be an antiwar leader? Gone. Her one trick wasn't much of a trick. And that Chicago woman hunkered in a church so she wouldn't be deported (she was here illegally as a Mexican)? Gone. Hudson, having less to say, is still talking, and, soon, come around January 21, 2009, will have little new noise to toot.
He needs Republicans making big and little mistakes. When the next president takes office, it just will not matter. Not my blog either. Even if a Democrat is the winner of the big dance.
Blogs all over are talking about candidates and election. Most of our blogs are not read by more than a few hundred people. Hudson's name, thanks to outing Foley's pedophiliac actions, is known to the press. Milking this a little longer might just get his blog read by a few hundred more. Since most people, in my unscientifically proven belief, read only blogs that say what already think, I doubt it will make a difference. Not his blog, not my blog, not 1,000 other blogs.
Polls are, at this point, showing Hillary Clinton has locked up the Democrat primary. Polls change day to day, but so far, that's the story. Barack Obama is coming in strong. Among the Republicans though, the story is not as clear. If I were to believe what seems to be Hudson Lane's interest, I say he sees the Democrats worried in November 2008.
This does not change whether or not Thompson has or has not broken the law. I don't know. If so, whatever procedure is to follow should be applied.
As I say in a comment on Hudson's blog:
Rules are rules, and should be followed. If one person needs to follow them, they all should.
It had not occurred to me, until now, that although the Democrats have cleared the election to either Hillary or Barack, the Republicans lead runner is yet undeclared, and quite possibly their strongest hope against the Democrats.
I always felt Rudy, McCain, and the rest of the Repubs were lost in the water, but Thompson could be their ace in the hole. I thought this was the Democrats election to lose, but Thompson could make this a horse race.
We live in a free country. We've got the Constitution, the ACLU, the Nation of Islam, and Billy Graham all living well together. And we have bloggers who whine, and bloggers who post about bloggers who whine. We have the KKK, Archie Bunker, and David Koresh.
Well, there you go. Freedom. Thank God.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
It used to be a well-appreciated fact: America hates Bush. Besides, with the Republicans controlling Congress, there was plenty for a Democrat to hate.
That's now trouble. As it seems, given the opportunity, Democrats are very disliked too. They are running Congress now. After much celebration with the more liberal side of the Democratic Party stepping in under Nancy Pelosi, it looked as if Democrats were as popular as the late Ronald Reagan. Not so.
The survey shows Bush's approval ratings at 35 percent, and Congress' even lower, 25 percent. Only 27 percent of those polled said the country is headed in the right direction, and 39 percent said they support the Iraq war, with 58 percent opposed.That's what it says in an AP piece posted on Yahoo.
No wonder George Bush seemed almost happy when she took office. Congress would make him look good. Who woulda thunk?
What are we supposed to do with that? We love to blame, but we don't know who to blame.
Where this leaves the presidential candidates is the need to push hope. Bill Clinton and Reagan were masters of this. Bush, both, were masters at promoting security, but feeble when it came to hope.
When election times comes, if we dislike everybody in theory (do we really hate Congress that much, or are we just tired of their reputation of giving themselves raises in troubled times, as ethics scandals creep out?) -- will anyone show up to vote? If we are left with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude, ambivalence will follow, finished off by ignoring the whole election.
We need hope. Real hope, not marketed garbage that is the product of a PR campaign. We need to believe in substance. George W Bush, for all his foibles, is a man of conviction. We need that character in office, with convictions we agree with, we can trust. Kerry lost because we never trusted he had any convictions. John Edwards, to a less degree, seems as wishy-washy (though he is committed to good hair, and is willing to invest in it).
As hope-mongers go, Barack Obama is in better shape, for now, than Hillary Clinton. She's working on this. Obama is simply more stable in his presentation. He feels believable, like a father figure. Reagan was a tough cowboy grandfather, but Obama is softer. He's not exactly Mike Brady of the Brady Bunch, but he carries himself with an academic certainty.
Among the Republicans? Hope is an easier sell for them to their followers. Republican voters tend to look at life and politics more optimistically. However, the Democrats are doing their best to chip away at it.
With Mitt Romney, the Democrats, and even Planned Parenthood is trying to say he's not prochoice and has changed his vote. Prolife Republicans are responding, "Atta boy!" much to the Democrat's chagrin. Rudy Giuliani has divorced to often to feel like a hopeful guy. He's humorous, but not hopeful. Fred Thompson, the jury is still out, but he could play that tenor. John McCain is dead in the water, and was nothing but an interview expert on TV talk shows.
When we all line up to vote, who is still arouning kissing babies is yet to be seen. This much we know, we probably don't like them.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Rochester, NH-- In response to the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota and the concerns it has raised around the country, Hillary Clinton today announced a series of emergency initiatives to ensure that the bridges, tunnels, and roads Americans rely on are safe. These initiatives are part of a broad plan for rebuilding America. Hillary’s plan will not only assure our safety, but create good jobs, stimulate the economy, enhance our global competitiveness, help the environment, and improve quality of life by reducing congestion.
"Something is very, very wrong when, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, in the richest country on earth, people are actually nervous about driving over bridges for fear that they’ll collapse. Or they’re worried that their levees may burst, or their highways may buckle. And let’s be clear: the degradation of our infrastructure isn’t just a serious threat to our safety - it is also a grave threat to our economy," Clinton said. "We do not need any more warnings. We do not need any more wakeup calls. It is time to stop wringing our hands and start rolling up our sleeves. It is time for us to rebuild America."
The bridge collapse in Minnesota underscores the necessity of a renewed national commitment to repairing and modernizing our infrastructure. The impact of Katrina on New Orleans was also a dramatic demonstration of the economic, environmental, and social consequences of our underinvestment. Hillary believes that we should not have to wait for bridge collapses and other disasters to focus on the state of our infrastructure. America needs a comprehensive infrastructure policy for the 21st Century.
More than a quarter of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Public transit systems are under-funded and insufficiently integrated into local land use policy. Highway expansion has not kept pace with traffic growth. Seaports are too capacity constrained and technologically inefficient for a nation deriving a quarter of its gross domestic product from international trade. Waterway repairs are so long overdue that half of the nation’s locks are now functionally obsolete. Freight rail capacity constraints are slowing down commerce. And inter-city passenger rail is underdeveloped, meaning increased highway congestion and lost opportunities to create new jobs.
Hillary Clinton is announcing her Rebuild America Plan to address these challenges:
Emergency Initiatives Addressing Safety:
Establish a $10 billion "Emergency Repair Fund" to address the backlog of critical infrastructure repairs. There is a significant infrastructure funding gap, and it applies to everything from roads and bridges, to waterways and seaports. The under investment harms our economy and compromises our safety. There is an urgent need to repair and upgrade more than 60,000 bridges the Federal Highway Administration classifies as “structurally deficient.” Hillary will invest $10 billion over 10 years to finance the redesign and reconstruction of these structures. She will end the “repair-only-when-it-fails” policy that defers critical repairs because funding is unavailable.
Provide $250 million in "Emergency Assessment Grants" to the states to conduct immediate safety reviews of their high-priority, high-risk infrastructure assets. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) has issued an advisory that urges state transportation departments to inspect bridges similar to the one that collapsed in Minnesota. Hillary Clinton proposes $250 million of “Emergency Assessment Grants” to help states conduct emergency infrastructure reviews of bridges and other critical infrastructure to ensure their immediate safety. These grants should be available with a priority-procurement status so they can be put to use as quickly as possible. If more funding is needed, Hillary will allow states and local governments the flexibility of using existing federal infrastructure funding.
Form a commission to carry out a comprehensive assessment of our engineering review standards so that we better prioritize needed repairs on bridges and roads. Recent events highlight the need to assess the integrity of our infrastructure and of prioritizing repairs to protect the safety of users. These events also suggest that we need to review our safety certification process and standards. The bridge collapse is only the most recent example of safety lapses. Last July, tons of concrete fell from the ceiling of Boston’s new tunnel and crushed a woman in her car. Hillary Clinton will establish a commission, under the auspices of the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to review the safety certification process and standards. The commission will also address the prioritization of needed repairs to roads and bridges, and make recommendations on how best to inspect, monitor, and maintain infrastructure on an ongoing basis.
Modernizing Our Infrastructure:
Increase federal funding for public transit by $1.5 billion per year. Increased public transit usage is arguably the best strategy for ameliorating the energy and environmental costs of transportation. As energy costs rise, more people will rely on public transportation. Today, only 5% of Americans commute by public transit, but doubling that figure could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25%. Public transit is also critically important to people who live in urban areas and rely on buses and trains for travel to work and school. Moreover, as the population ages, an increasing number of people will need public transit as their ability to drive diminishes. Hillary will increase federal investment in public transit by $1.5 billion per year to ensure needed capacity expansions and service level improvements.
Link federal public transit funds to local land use policies that encourage residential developments that maximize public transit usage. Over the next 25 years, a large percentage of the buildings we live, work, and shop in will be rebuilt or newly built. This presents a significant opportunity for the federal government to encourage sensible residential and commercial development that are linked to, and encourage, public transit usage. Local areas seeking large federal investments in public transit are already required to have land-use plans and policies that make investing in a high-density transit system worthwhile. Today, these requirements are focused mainly on commercial developments and not enough on residential considerations. Hillary will encourage the sort of dense residential concentrations needed to support public transit systems by better linking public transit funding with residential land-use policies. This will help to discourage sprawl and fight congestion.
Intercity Passenger Rail
Invest an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems. In the 21st Century, intercity passenger rail should be a viewed as a critical component of the nation’s transportation system. It is an environmentally efficient alternative to highway driving and short flights; it relieves congestion on roads and airports; reduces the emission of automotive pollutants; and it stimulates economic growth by linking metropolitan areas. States have been left to pursue intercity rail projects with only modest federal support. Hillary believes that greater federal involvement is needed to maximize the potential of this transportation mode. She will increase federal investment in intercity passenger rail by $1 billion over 5 years in order to help finance capital projects. These investments are in addition to those made in Amtrak.
Partner with state and local governments and the private sector to create a national policy to guide the modernization of ports. Given the importance of foreign trade to our economy (26% of GDP), ports should be a priority for the federal government. The movement of freight by sea is expected to triple by 2020. Today, a large number of ports are in substandard condition. Many are cramped; navigation channels are narrow; harbors are too shallow for larger ships; access routes are congested; and investments in waterway managements have been low. Hillary will work with state and local governments and the private sector to devise a coherent and comprehensive national policy to expand our port capacity and our port-to-nation transportation connections. She will also work with industry to improve port productivity through such things as the deployment of new technology and by addressing congestion at the major terminals.
Addressing Congestion and Traffic Growth:
Increase the budget for the Department of Transportation’s congestion reduction programs by approximately 50% to $600 million annually. Federal support for innovative state and local congestion-reduction initiatives flows principally through two programs: Urban Partnerships and the Value Pricing Pilot Program. The combined budget for these two programs is approximately $400 million. Hillary will increase the budgets by 50% to $600 million annually to enable the programs to provide greater support to a larger number of cities and states devising innovative solutions to congestion.
Make "technology solutions" to congestion a priority for the Department of Transportation. Congestion is adding about 37% to the length of the average trip during peak hours, a three-fold increase from 1983. Road construction alone cannot be the solution to congestion because it is costly and environmentally impractical. Also, capacity additions alone will not eliminate congestion problems because traffic disruptions from things like weather, breakdowns, and road work account for one third to one half of all delays. Many traffic disruptions can be addressed by using advanced technologies to collect and relay real-time information on road and travel conditions. Also sophisticated traffic lanes management and more rapid incident clearance are shown to significantly reduce congestion. Electronic toll systems reduce backup at toll booths. In sum, the roadways of the future must integrate smart technology. Hillary will make developing and implementing technology-based congestion-reduction strategies a priority for the Department of Transportation.
Promote telecommuting by encouraging its use at federal agencies, and by committing up to $50 million per year to support state and local initiatives. Work travel imposes a greater service requirement on the transportation system than any other travel purpose. Telecommuting, the use of information technology to replace work-related travel, can ameliorate congestion and air pollution by reducing rush-hour car trips. Telecommuting can also benefit employers by reducing office space needs and increasing worker productivity. Hillary Clinton will promote telecommuting by requiring the federal agencies to set specific telecommuting goals for their workforces, and she will require that each agency task a senior manager with oversight of its telecommuting policies. Hillary will also invest up to $50 million annually in state and local telecommuting initiatives.
Support initiatives to establish leadership in broadband. Under the Bush administration, the country that invented the Internet has slipped to 25th in the global rankings for broadband deployment. In order to accelerate the deployment of sophisticated networks, Hillary Clinton will provide tax incentives to encourage broadband deployment in underserved areas. She will also provide financial support for state and local broadband initiatives.
In addition to the policies announced today, as Senator, Hillary has cosponsored the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007. The Act establishes a federally-backed independent entity that will evaluate and finance large infrastructure projects that are of regional or national significance. The bank will finance projects through the issuance of bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, direct subsidies, and loan guarantees.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
No, this isn't celebrity boxing. Rudy's ex-wives could beat up Hillary. He has, what, three of them?
And this isn't battle of the sexes. Rudy's a man too.
John Kerry. Remember him? Not many do. He was the guy back in 2004 who ran against George W Bush. Bush was saluted with a record number of popular votes, trouncing the hapless Kerry. Some of those who voted for Kerry really were not Kerry supporters, but hated Bush with more passion than a KKK member. So, Kerry had his political butt handed to him on a platter.
Rudy Giuliani does not want to be John Kerry.
What? Rudy is a Republican. Kerry is a Democrat.
Right. Where they are similar is that Hillary Clinton's supporters are pro-Hillary. Rudy's will include a large batch of anti-Hillary supporters. Kerry's campaign was set on shifting sand, "Anyone but Bush." If Rudy rides the waves of "Anyone but Hillary," then he'll land on the sand just to be swept away.
Rudy's other problem is Barack Obama. As noted in an early post (Barack Obama is not a Pacifist (so what?)), Obama's not against military intervention against terrorism. One of Rudy's selling points, like the floundering John McCain's, is his commitment to putting down al Qaeda. Now, Obama's on cue, making sure his supporters know he's not exactly pro-war, but that he'll do what it takes. This will not steal away all of Rudy's supporters, but it will grab a few liberals that want an anti-terrorist candidate. Rudy isn't exactly a moral conservative, being called a champion of gay rights and supporter of abortion.
See: Political positions of Rudy Giuliani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Michael Long, chairman of the New York state Conservative Party of New York stated, "The gay marriage issue draws a line down the middle of the street, and Rudy Giuliani is something of a champion of gay rights."Pro-Iraq, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage conservatives might jump the morally ambiguous Republican Party and vote third party. I can see Ron Paul (see Ron Paul for President) landing as such a candidate. The third party candidate might pull a Ross Perot, stealing enough votes from the Republican presidential candidate to put Rudy under the Brooklyn Bridge.
If Hillary's snags Barack Obama as her running mate, and the race is against Rudy Giuliani (running mate unknown), at this moment (I have waffled immensely), it could be a landslide. Rudy does not have the moral differentiation, nor the completeness of difference regarding war, that he once appeared to have.
See the story referenced below, or any just like it. I'm wondering if this will gain voters or lose them. Barack Obama enjoyed a popularity from pacifists. Clearly, he is not. Is he catering to otherwise liberal voters who, although they might have concerns about our presence in Iraq, are very interested in seeing al Qaeda put down?
The White House quieted the remarks, claiming it respects Pakistan's sovereignty. Right. Sure we do. I'm sure we really do, but, the reality might change if we learn if, as Obama termed it, "actionable" factors - like the country tolerating al Qaeda running the training camps, or turning their head when bin Laden shuffles from cave to cave (as roaches are apt to do).
My own view is that this may not win Republicans or Democrat conservatives who are uncomfortable with Obama's progay, prochoice moral platform, but against Hillary Clinton. Some of what even Democrats secretly like about George Bush made it to the TV news about Obama: stand tough, stand tall, and do no take any crap about al Qaeda.
Tough campaign talk. That's all it is. What he says can be construed as you like, since, although powerful, Obama hasn't the power yet to follow-through.
Obama: If Pakistan doesn't hit Al Qaeda, US must
Chicago Tribune - 31 minutes ago
By Mike Dorning Washington Bureau August 2, 2007 WASHINGTON—Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, under attack from a rival who portrays him as naive on foreign policy, declared Wednesday that he would use military force against Al Qaeda ...
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
With Ron Paul in the mix, is he a real candidate, or just a third voice to provide noise among Republicans? John McCain is stumbling, and it looks like he may not make it back to the barn.
Hillary Clinton represents the standard liberal position: anti-war, prochoice. Barack Obama is more or less the same (though he is not as antiwar as it first appeared - he may just be anti-Iraq). Can either withstand a candidate who takes on their anti-Iraq stance and embraces it, yet retains a standard conservative platform?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The US press had been getting bored with the extended and slow-moving 2008 presidential primaries. That is, until this week. Excitement came in the form of a rather intense exchange between the two leading Democratic contenders: New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama.Let The Mudslinging Begin
It began in the midst of a televised debate on July 23. This debate's format was novel in that questions were posed to the candidates, not by journalists but by average citizens who pre-recorded and submitted them via YouTube.
No one really expected Hillary Clinton not to mud-sling? And surely, no one expected Barack Obama not to toss a few charming plops of mud in return? This is, after all, a presidential election.
Cynically, I say that this might be planned. Keeps the election interesting, and helps both play hard and nice, sparring before the general election. One will receive the Democratic nomination. Not one credible media person is talking seriously about any other Democratic candidate.
This way, there is an "honorable warrior" set-up for whomever wins to fight off the Republicans. Something like, "Barack, you fought hard. I respect that. And that is why, for America, for my running mate, I am choosing you to fight with me against the Republican Party, that we, together, may run this country. George Bush was monarch long enough!"
Strategic? Yes. Will it work? I'm convinced of it. Will it win the 2008 Election? Hard to say. The Republicans aren't exactly sitting on their hands.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
One of the most important ways we can gather that information is by monitoring terrorist communications. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- also known as FISA -- provides a critical legal foundation that allows our intelligence community to collect this information while protecting the civil liberties of Americans. But this important law was written in 1978, and it addressed the technologies of that era. This law is badly out of date -- and Congress must act to modernize it.
Today we face sophisticated terrorists who use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate with each other, recruit operatives, and plan attacks on our country. Technologies like these were not available when FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments. As a result, our Nation is hampered in its ability to gain the vital intelligence we need to keep the American people safe. In his testimony to Congress in May, Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, put it this way: We are "significantly burdened in capturing overseas communications of foreign terrorists planning to conduct attacks inside the United States."
To fix this problem, my Administration has proposed a bill that would modernize the FISA statute. This legislation is the product of months of discussion with members of both parties in the House and the Senate -- and it includes four key reforms: First, it brings FISA up to date with the changes in communications technology that have taken place over the past three decades. Second, it seeks to restore FISA to its original focus on protecting the privacy interests of people inside the United States, so we don't have to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located in foreign locations. Third, it allows the government to work more efficiently with private-sector entities like communications providers, whose help is essential. And fourth, it will streamline administrative processes so our intelligence community can gather foreign intelligence more quickly and more effectively, while protecting civil liberties.
Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country. Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country.
As the recent National Intelligence Estimate reported, America is in a heightened threat environment. Reforming FISA will help our intelligence professionals address those threats -- and they should not have to wait any longer. Congress will soon be leaving for its August recess. I ask Republicans and Democrats to work together to pass FISA modernization now, before they leave town. Our national security depends on it.
Thank you for listening.
Monday, July 9, 2007
What happens when a large (but small) group of ardent, well-meaning antiwar protesters build a symbol, and the symbol does not realize that is all she was? What of the symbol wants to be real.
Cindy Sheehan, not quite catching on that she was a brand name for antiwar efforts, thinks she has become the marketing about her.
Pro-abortion symbol 'Roe' as in Roe v Wade actual name Norma L. McCorvey) wanted to be real. Norma realized later she was a pawn, saw the shallowness, and converted to Christianity, and now, ironically, speaks at pro-life events.
Of all the crazy competition Hillary Clinton is facing, all are actually competent. Same with the Republican line-up.
Here in Illinois, Mike Ditka (Chicago Bears head coach in the 1980s, and loved by Illinois citizens) considered running against Barack Obama. Da Coach believed that Obama stood for something far more liberal than Illinois deserved. Why didn't he run? He realized name recognition was not enough. He didn't know how to do the job.
On the front of it all, Sheehan thinks Pelosi should file impeachment papers against George Bush. Fair enough. She does not know how to file them herself, and might not realize the legal requirements for impeachment.
Nancy Pelosi is not conservative. She's the Newt Gingrich of liberal politics. She has an agenda, is not willing to seriously negotiate if she can bulldoze on though, and has the power to get things done. That said, she hasn't filed impeachment papers. Why not?
Maybe she realizes
- Impeachment would be bad for the country. she saw the silly proceedings against Bill Clinton.
- Bush is not guilty of any impeachment-type laws or can't be proved as having broken the laws.
- Has bigger fish to fry, like getting troops home from Iraq.
- Politically has negotiated that she avoid impeachment for the sake of something else she wants.
- Is gathering evidence, but is not quite ready to impeach.
- Knows by the time she can get things ready for impeachment, the 2008 election is here.
- Knows the political downside to impeaching Bush might be that the Democrats will lose the 2008 election.
- Any, neither, all of the above.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
News? Sunny days are prime competition for rainy ones.
Of course, of course. Who else should he focus on? Hillary is leading. He wants to lead. He has his hardcore adoration, but there are many undecideds, fence-sitters, and people who like to say they are independents, but are really indecisives.
The real independents are out of his reach right now. They are likely to vote for a noncandidate in polls. He can't grab them until November 2008, when their vote counts harshly.
It is a smart move. Hillary is a worthy opponent, and, by making her his opponent, his image gets lifted up, just as, back in the 1970s, someone who say they are fighting Muhammad Ali. Fight Ali? Must be tough yourself to dare get in his ring. Same idea.
This is a two person battle. No other Democrat counts any longer. Barack is just moving the ball down the court.
Barack Obama's Campaign Increasingly Engages Hillary Clinton
ABC News - 1 hour ago
"The only person who would probably be prepared to be our president on Day 1 would be Bill Clinton -- not Hillary Clinton," Barack Obama on Monday.
Why Gore lost against George W Bush in 2000 can be argued all you want. Now, in 2008, Bush is not running, Hillary Clinton is being pushed by Republicans as too liberal, and Barack Obama is being smeared as too green. Al Gore has neither baggage, and was never married, so far I know, to Bill Clinton.
He could've been a contender.
Not so, says druggie son. He used no words. No, no. Al's son is a man of action. To send his message to Dad, he drive his car, the cops allege, over 100 mph, with drugs in the car.
Sure, his son is 24, and no longer Daddy's boy, but, anyone named Gore, outside of Leslie Gore (she was a 1960s pop singer for you kids), will impact the possibility of election. The fact that he is Al Gore III can't help.
Whether Al Gore ever intended to run is a something we can only speculate about, but, when compared to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, he may have been a real force. Now, no one outside of Woody Harrelson would want a drug-infested family in the White House. Even George Bush went sober.
What was in the dopehead's car?
After having been busted with pot possession in December 2003, you would have thought Dad would say, "Now, son, when I said I wanted pharmaceuticals more available, I met for sick people, not you, you dumb ass."
I guess that message never sunk in. Normally, you might expect that story in a gossip blog, but, this is news which impacts November 2008.
What can you expect from a guy who grew up in a state where tobacco is a main crop? Pot, cigarettes? The difference must not be so easy for him. It could be he thought one drug was the same as the next. Not so. These drugs he was busted with will only ruin Al Gore II's chance to be president, while tobacco cigarettes will kill you.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are $29,000,000 richer. For Rudy, that's expected. For Romney, less so. It will help him argue to new supporters he is electable. Expect the next Romney report to be about bigger dinero.
For Hillary and Barack, otherwise known as Clinton and Obama, this means little. They have their own money to chase.
A commuted sentence basically says, "You're guilty, but you need not go to prison."
The original sentence, 30 months in prison, is on the books, but, in essence, completed, or, rather, deemed unnecessary.
Politically, this won't hurt or help anyone but Libby. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama will not gain from this. They cannot say, "Republicans are no good because of Scooter Libby." The impact will be forgotten by November 2008.
A lot of jabbering on talk shows will go on, but, any president knows controversial decisions made over a year before an election are inconsequential.
Republicans will not be hurt either. Any candidate worth his public relations salt has steered himself away from George Bush. They may agree with a Bush decision, like the Iraq War, but, his name will not be emphasized. George W is not running for re-election, and he, himself, is just doing what presidents do. Bill Clinton did this, and, famously, Gerard Ford did it with Nixon. No one remembers the Bill Clinton criminals, and no one will remember Libby.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Hard saying about Keyes who skipped town quickly after having his keister served on a platter by the dominant male.
It is evidence that, while Hillary Clinton may be leading the pack, the race is not over. Not too forget, though, Howard Dean raised a chunk of change. Obama is not the fool Dean is, and has a real chance.
Obama Raises $32.5 Million, Record for a Democratic Candidate
Friday, June 29, 2007
- Sweet speaking? No.
- Kind? No.
- Ogled by middle-aged liberals and conservatives alike? Yes.
- Good or bad for the Republicans? Dunno.
That's the question. Is she bad for Republicans? I used to think yes. Then, non-candidate John Edwards got on the anti-Anne Coulter bandwagon. As I see it, given Edwards is among the most liberal Democrats, his interest validates Coulter to Republicans.
This does not make Coulter right in her approach or ideas, just as her ideas are not by default wrong just because she hates liberals. It does mean that John Edwards campaign is desperate for votes, and used Coulter to stir up interest.
As Democrats go, I contend this is still a Hillary Clinton race, with a strong second by Barack Obama. The support is there, the money is there, the media is there. Edwards is about as important as when Alan Keyes ran against Obama in illinois -- lots of noise, but not a chance.
John Edwards is, ironically, helping Republicans. As he is now sitting the chair of the third person in a two-person race, money that could go to supporting Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, is lining his coffers. Wasting money does no candidate any good, but, to those investing foolishly in Edwards, voters are the ones really losing. What does Anne Coulter get? Infamy, book sales, and the capacity to stir money from Obama to Edwards. She's the victor.
What if the vote was Anne Coulter against John Edwards? Who would win?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
You might see other ads here, not just Amazon products. If there's anything vaguely valuable on this blog, or somewhat interesting, please support us in this way. I'm just a poor writer trying to make a buck while tossing in my two cents about issues I think matter in this world. And, occasionally, I'm right.