Notepad-The Blog & Show

On the "Birthers"-America's Biggest Nut Factory

2009-03-01T15:05:00.003-05:00

There are 24% of people in this nation who believe in witches. There are still people, according to the BBC, that still believe the Earth is flat, even in this nation. And now there's this conspiracy theory-one that has absolutely no base on any side-that President Obama was not born in this nation, and thus cannot president.

Welcome to the world of the Birthers. As today's report on Politico will tell you (click the link for it), the Birthers are a 300000-person strong group that believe, with strong conviction, that Barack Obama is not from this nation. They also believe that President Obama cannot be a citizen because his father was not a citizen.

Reality check here, though-the belief that President Obama was not born on this nation is akin to saying Barack Obama is not on this planet. Hawaiian officials have confirmed that he was born in Honolulu in 1961. The conservative site WorldNetDaily has seen the birth certificate, and has said it is legit. The idea that Obama cannot be a citizen because his father wasn't is complete bunk- (a), his mother was a citizen, and (b) he was born here. He is a natural-born citizen, born in this nation, and he is older than 35-thus, he meets the qualifications of the presidency.

Regardless, people still cannot believe that President Obama meets the qualifications of the presidency. And, yes, these folks are far too many fries short of a Happy Meal. In courts around the country, the Birthers have stated their claim that President Obama is not president-and they have been shot down. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, they were not given a writ of certiorari-most likely because their argument is both alack of logic and fact. Even conservative pundit Michael Medved has said that the Birthers are "crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters" who are "the worst enemy of the conservative movement." And let's face it, one of the movement's leaders, Alan Keyes, fits that discription. I think he's still ticked that he was thrown around the state of Illinois by Obama in 2004.

According to Politico, the main calls from the Birthers are for the state of Hawaii "to release for public inspection Obama's original birth certificate rather than the notarized copy typically issued." Governor Linda Lingle (Republican, and erroneously referred to by the movement as a Democrat) of Hawaii has refused, saying that is against state law.

The real reason behind this obviously isn't logic or reason or even opinion; it is fear. Simple racist fear from those who think that he is a Muslim and was sworn in on a Koran (he wasn't; that was Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota-and, by the way, it was Thomas Jefferson's Koran he was sworn in on); that he does not pledge allegiance to the flag from a picture (it was taken before Obama put his hand on his heart; when in the Senate, Obama often led the Pledge of Allegiance); and that he wasn't president because the Oath of Office wasn't read right (Even if President Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts didn't do it a second time, Obama was president before the oath of office at 12:05 PM; he was president at noon, sometime when Yo-Yo Ma was bow-synching on his cello). These people will not stop at anything to make it impossible for change to come in America; indeed, they will be the ones held back.

I Promise, this is the Last Election Math and Aftermath (Part III)...

2009-01-03T23:40:00.002-05:00

...I hope.

But according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Al Franken, barring legislation by Norm Coleman (who will undoubtedly bring suit of some sort), will be the next junior Senator from the state of Minnesota. Franken leads by 225 votes, according to the Star-Trib. This would bring the balance of power to 59-to-41. The result, however, is well less than my prediction that Franken would win by two percentage points. But perhaps I meant two votes...

Stay tuned for a eulogy of the Bush administration, in 15 days.

Also, quick public service announcement for politically upright New Jerseyites: check out my blog Draft Codey for Lieutenant Governor, by clicking the link above.

Notepad Classics

2009-01-03T23:06:00.002-05:00

I wrote this post, what was meant to be the first Notepad video, on 19 March 2008. President Bush had spoken at the Economic Club of New York earlier that week...

A Romantic Moron, a Romantic Liar

"I must say, I'm a little envious…if I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed…it must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks.”

Mr. Bush on the troops, 14 March 2008 at the Economic Club of New York. Here was President Bush’s attempt to make up for all the faux pas he has delivered to the troops: the jokes he told months before the 2004 election, the swiftboating of John Kerry and the irrefutable, irrevocable destruction of Senator Kerry’s name as a veteran, the countless times he has refused to meet with Cindy Sheehan, a gold-star mother and not just some political activist, and being in cahoots with Blackwater and Halliburton, allowing them free reign as hired guns-mercenaries- giving them three times the pay and furthered protection, withholding troops promised to come home, not to come home indefinitely, and not giving troops any timetable from which their time in Iraq will ultimately end. How romantic and envious, indeed.

Mr. Bush’s attempt to ‘make nice’ to his subordinates came off looking like Minuit’s attempt to ‘make nice’ with the Lenape-give them praise or material goods in order to snooker them some more. While Bush and his Republican colleagues will not vote on a timetable to get the men and women of Iraq out of there-even as leverage for the Iraqi government to do something, they also will not investigate Blackwater’s shooting of Iraqi civilians, nor their possible smuggling of weapons to the Kurds-at taxpayers’ expense of course-nor Halliburton’s countless violations of our trust and of our ethics: their overpricing of their and former subsidiary KBR’s services-again, at taxpayers’ expense-the unethical ties to Mr. Cheney, and the gang rape of a contractor. Why has this not been investigated? In turn, the soldier has been turned into propaganda. Cases in point: Corporal Pat Tillman, a great man who gave up millions of dollars to fight in Afghanistan, had his death used as propaganda to continue our “War on Terror”- as far as going to say that he had been killed by a Taliban convoy, instead of friendly fire-and possibly murdered. When Private Jessica Lynch was rescued from her prison of war, her story became a virtual ad campaign for war in Iraq. Quoting Lynch, “They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things.”

And Mr. Bush stated that “if I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.” First of all, when he was much younger, he could have fought in a war, he could have had this fantastic experience. It was called the Vietnam War. He could have volunteered, he could have fought on the front lines just like Senator Kerry, just like Senator Max Cleland, who came home from Vietnam with just an arm- he could have brought glory to his name. He could have been drafted and faced it, just like thousands who did and came home, or did and died. Instead, he chose to go into the Texas Air National Guard-where he could have served diligently and with respect. Instead, he went AWOL- this is fact, not CBS-fabricated lies. Mr. Bush went not to fight against the Viet Cong, but instead fought for the Republican senatorial candidate in Alabama.

Mr. Bush, you could have fought before. You could have been the Great American Soldier to which you romanticize. And you can be that soldier now. While still Tsar of Russia, Nicholas II went to the Eastern Front, leading on the front lines at war, instead of leading in St. Petersburg. While still Emperor of France, Napoleon fought and faced his worst battles while the executive. John Dickinson, delegate from Pennsylvania at the 2nd Continental Congress, became a brigadier general in the Pennsylvania militia, and then the Delaware militia, in the Revolutionary War. Julius Caesar, the man Bush seems so much to emulate via his wishes to extend his executive powers to the point of dictatorship, continued to fight Pompey as Dictator, gaining enough power to become emperor.

Mr. Bush, follow this long line of leaders in your war. The populace believes this is your war. The corporations which you have so diligently bankrolled believe this is your war. The Capitol believes this is your war. Why don’t you make it your war? Why don’t you follow this romantic dream of yours, Mr. Bush? Confront the danger you have fomented! Make the history you have created, what will be remembered as a dark time in American history, following in the line of Hoover, Harding, Adams! Follow your dream! If you are to romanticize a war the men and women serving abroad disagree with, go to war and romanticize your own self.

More Awards!

2008-12-30T22:42:00.002-05:00

It’s now time for the 2nd annual Paddy Awards. There are a few new ones, but mostly old one’s on the menu today, as we look back on the political year:

The Worst Lie of the Year Award goes to...
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, for her statement-which she reiterated for circa eleven times, according to MSNBC’s First Read, after she was “unveiled” as the vice presidential nominee for the Republican Party-that “I said to Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that Bridge to Nowhere,” that infamous Ted Stevens and Don Young-endorsed bridge that would span from Gravina Island (population: 50) to Ketchikan International Airport to replace a ferry-oh, and it would cost a whopping $398 million. The problem here is that Candidate Palin in 2006 was FOR THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE, stating at a debate, “I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now – while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” A month earlier, Candidate Palin wore a shirt saying “Nowhere, Alaska 99901”, the zip code being the zip code of the Ketchikan area. The first flip-flop of many in what would become a death knell to the McCain campaign.

The New Kid On The Block Award goes to...
Al Franken! Perhaps this award is premature, but while not being a senator officially, Candidate Franken has been able to present a campaign that, while not without its controversy (issues on paying back taxes to the IRS, an article in Playboy degrading to women), has allowed for a comedian-of all things-to possibly win an election. A man who once wrote a book about a possible presidential campaign entitled Why Not Me?, Franken has shown strong political views on environmental reform, an income tax that helps the common worker, marriage rights for all-including same-sex couples-and a well-needed promise to our Constitution in the form of a “quickie impeachment.” Most importantly, however, he and incumbent Senator Norm Coleman have shown the need for election reform, showing the dos and don’ts of how to decide an election.

The “Don’t Let the Door Hit You Where the Good Lord Split You” Award is shared by...
Eliot Spitzer and Rod Blagojevich! The dynamic duo of detestable leaders brought to light the murky nature of Albany and Chicago politics, filled with “pay-to-play,” the “Bear Mountain Compact” that reporters won’t talk of fornication north of the New York landmark, the sale of the Senate seat of the next president of the United States, the blackmailing of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and the “Emperor’s VIP Club.” Bye-bye, governors! Enjoy prison...

Honorable Mention to Ted Stevens, for his ethics conviction and subsequent senatorial defeat, adding insult to injury. He probably won’t enjoy prison like the aforementioned two, instead getting to enjoy his repaired-free-by-VECO Alaska home.

The Bush Scandal of the Year Award goes to...
The President’s massive destruction of civil liberties and global charters in the form of suspension of habeas corpus, use of “enhanced” (i.e. corporal punishment) ways to gain (mostly false) intelligence, and application of mercenaries (i.e. KBR, Blackwater) in his war in Iraq to run amok killing innocent civilians, that in total merit not only impeachment and conviction, but war crimes and crimes of aggression at The Hague, the Netherlands, at the International Criminal Court.

The Political Comic Relief Award goes to...
British PM Gordon Brown! The following video speaks for itself-click the link!

The Political Relief from Comedy Award goes to...
Clarence Thomas! According to a study by the Yale Law Review, Thomas is the unfunniest Supreme Court justice, in that he produced zero instances of laughter in the Court’s transcripts. The reason for this is that he hasn’t asked a question in THREE YEARS! What has he done the last three years? Nobody knows...

And a Special Editor’s Award for Civility in Recounting goes to...
The Minnesota Canvassing Board, of course! After the first day of its rapid judgment of the plethora of challenges of ballots, the best line of the entire campaign was spoken-“Milk and cookies at 9 AM.” Compared to a 2000 circus in which people were rioting in the Canvassing Board offices, screaming “Let us in! Let us in!”, a time for milk and cookies is well needed.

Happy New Year, everyone. Milk and cookies.

Election Math and Aftermath, Pt. II

2008-12-02T21:03:00.003-05:00

Well, call it Democratic wishful thinking in Georgia. With both parties putting in campaign infrastructure and money, along with party dignitaries and celebrities (Sarah Palin, John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, and Mitt Romney of the GOP, Donna Brazile, Al Gore, Ludacris and T.I. of the Democratic Party), Jim Martin couldn't pull off victory in the Senate run-off, necessitated by incumbent Saxby Chambliss' 49.8% of the vote on November 4. According to NBC News, AP, CNN, and Sean Quinn of FiveThirtyEight, Saxby Chambliss will win the run-off with 69% of the vote in, with Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight saying that Chambliss will defeat Martin by about 10 points. It looks as if Martin could not get out the African-American vote in Democratic-heavy DeKalb and Fulton Counties (Martin was actually losing to Fulton County at time of post). This ends the chances of Democrats gaining a super-majority; with the Senate race in Minnesota between incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, Democrat Al Franken, and Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley still being contested, Democrats hold a 58-41 majority in the Senate, with, since last post, Democratic challenger Mark Begich defeating incumbent and convicted felon Ted Stevens in Alaska (leading to a bizarre standing ovation and hours-long veneration of the man, including Larry Craig eerily saying, "I'll miss you, Uncle Ted.")

However, the bigger aftermath of the election comes in President-elect Obama's Cabinet. Mr. Obama has appointed the following posts:

White House Chief of Staff: Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), former advisor to Bill Clinton, Chairman, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006
Secretary of the Treasury: Timothy Geithner, President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Vice Chairman, Federal Open Market Committee
Secretary of State: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former First Lady
Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates, current Defense Secretary
Attorney General: Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General under Clinton
Secretary of Homeland Security: Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ)
Secretary of Commerce: Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), former Energy Secy. and UN Ambassador

Additionally, it has been reported that former South Dakota senator Tom Daschle will be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services.

An interesting effect of this is who will replace these people. Obviously, Mr. Holder and Dr. Gates need not be replaced from their current positions, as the former does not have one in government and the latter will remain in his current position. However, here's how it will all break down:

Democratic Lt. Gov. Diane Denish will replace Gov. Richardson in the Santa Fe state house.

Republican Secy. of State Jan Brewer will replace Gov. Napolitano, who was rumored to be considering a run against John McCain in 2010 for the Senate (she would have to leave the state house due to term limits that year anyway).

Vice-President Elect Joe Biden will be replaced by his chief of staff, Ted Kaufman. Kaufman stated that he will not run for the Senate in the 2010 special election, possibly making way for the Vice-President elect's son, Beau, who is the Delaware Attorney General. Other possible candidates include outgoing Lt. Gov. John C. Carney, Jr. for the Democrats, and Rep. Michael Castle for the Republicans.

What is unknown is who will replace Rep. Emanuel, Sen. Clinton, and President-elect Obama. Rumors state that Gov. Rod Blagojevich will appoint Illinois Dept. of Veterans Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., or Blagojevich himself as Senator, with no special election needed (Obama's seat would have been up for election in 2010 anyway). Other names that could float to the surface include Chicago Mayor William Daley and former Senator Carol Moseley Braun.

2010 will be a very interesting year for New York politics. Not only will both of the senatorial seats be up for election (one of which will, barring a bizarre turn-of-events, be easily won by incumbent Democrat Charles Schumer), the governorship (and vacant Lieutenant Governorship) will also be up for election. Also, in 2009, the mayor of New York will be elected, which could cause an even larger problem in New York politics, as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), who has wrangled away the rights of voters to choose whether or not city elected officials could serve a third term, instead choosing in favor of the third term himself, could possibly run for governor. With a Marist University poll showing incumbent Gov. David A. Paterson leading Bloomberg 44% to 40%, with 16% undecided, Gov. Paterson's got some thinking to do as to who will be the next junior Senator. In the same Marist poll aforementioned, 43% of registered voters believe current Attorney General Andrew Cuomo ought to be appointed Senator. This would make the most sense for Paterson: Cuomo, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary and eldest son of former New York City mayor and New York governor Mario Cuomo, has been rumored to run for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2010, so pushing a rival out of the picture would be optimal for Paterson. Other possible candidates include Reps. Steve Israel, Nydia Velasquez, or Gregory Meeks (who, by the way, is my Congressman and was the only one of the three to be parodied on SNL).

And then there's my choice, the one that will never happen. That's former President Bill Clinton. I think that this would be a very good pick: Bill's immensely popular, knows how to win an election, and can raise money at will (along with funding his own campaign). I also like it for the history; he would become the first president since later-Chief Justice William Howard Taft to be re-involved in the federal government, the first president since Andrew Johnson (ironically, one of the two-along with Clinton-to be impeached) to serve in the Senate, and the first spouse to replace their Senator spouse since Jean Carnahan was appointed to her replace posthumously elected husband Mel in 2000.

On Friday, I will post an apolitical post, On the Malice of the Human Spirit, in response to the debacles involving Stephon Marbury of the New York Knicks, and the tragic death of a man, who apparently used to live on my block, at my local Wal-Mart. Next Thursday, I will post On the Need to Impeach the Current President. Also, stay tuned for the live blog, The Great Nexus: On Religion and Politics, on Tuesday, December 23; the Second Annual Paddy Awards on Monday, December 29; and my final post of the Bush Administration, my Eulogy of the Bush Administration (which I may do as a video), on January 19.

Election Math and Aftermath

2008-11-06T17:35:00.004-05:00

Hopefully, we will all remember where we were at 11:02 PM Eastern Time, on Tuesday, November 4. Some of you may have been in Chicago's Grant Park, or on Harlem's 125th Street, or in Times Square, or quite possibly just outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue-where Barack Obama will reside, effective at noon on January 20, 2009. Obama won, at post time, 364 electoral votes to McCain's 163-with one electoral vote still in doubt, that being the electoral vote of Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District-which Obama looks to win, according to Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight and the Omaha World-Herald. Obama won with a staggering 64 million votes-52% of the popular vote.

Here's a look at the Electoral Map:

The real struggle, though, is in the Senate. Let's take a look at the ten races I saw as the closest, and if I got my predictions right:

10. Colorado:
PREDICTION: MARK UDALL (D) BY 15
Okay, so it was closer than I thought. Udall did win in a landslide, though, by nine points over former congressman Bob Schaffer. Colorado was a big state for the Dems this year; they made their gambit by holding the DNC in Denver, and the west went with them.

9. Texas:
PREDICTION: JOHN CORNYN (R) BY 7
And this one wasn't as close as I thought. Although Obama campaigned more there than most Dems, and I thought that the youth (especially in the Austin area) was underpolled in an already close race (according to polls), challenger Rick Noriega just couldn't win here, losing by 12. Chalk it up to left-wing wishful thinking.

8. New Hampshire:
PREDICTION: JEANNE SHAHEEN (D) BY 6
Finally, one where I was close! Former Governor Shaheen beat incumbent Sununu by 7 points!

7. Kentucky:
PREDICTION: BRUCE LUNSFORD (D) BY 1
Alas, sometimes a Republican can win. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell got in very hot water in this race, which wasn't called until late in the evening. But Bruce Lunsord couldn't eke this one out: McConnell by 6.

6. Georgia:
PREDICTION: JIM MARTIN (D) BY 3
In the first vote, I was wrong. Incumbent Saxby Chambliss won a plurality, winning approximately 49.9%. However, in Georgia, you need 50% of the vote, plus one-a majority-to win. Thus, there will be a run-off on December 2, says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It's all hands on deck here: expect huge amounts of money-whatever's left in the war chest-from both campaigns, especially the national parties. But you have to wonder if blacks, who came out in droves for Obama-especially in DeKalb County-will come out to elect Martin in December. So, maybe I might be right in the second vote!

5. Oregon:
PREDICTION: JEFF MERKLEY (D) BY 5
Right now, I'm wrong. With 85% of the vote in (including 80% in from Portland and Multonomah County, and only 60% in from Eugene and Lane County-both Democratic strongholds), Jeff Merkley has been projected to defeat incumbent Gordon Smith's Senate seat. It may actually exceed my prediction by the time all the votes are counted.

4. Mississippi-B:
PREDICTION: ROGER WICKER (R) WINS BY "A FEW THOUSAND" OVER RONNIE MUSGROVE
I was waaay off on this one. The close polling a week ago in Mississippi's Special Election came out as a farce, as incumbent-by-two-years Roger Wicker defeated former Gov. Musgrove by 10 points.

3. North Carolina:
PREDICTION: KAY HAGAN (D) BY 3
The surpriser of the 2008 season did go the Democrats' way, as Kay Hagan won in a 9-point landslide, defeating incumbent Elizabeth Dole. Liddy's campaign tactic to tie State Sen. Hagan to the group, Godless Americans, and even insinuating that Hagan is an atheist, backfired-Hagan shot back at Dole's comment, saying that she has taught Sunday school for the last 5 years.

2. Minnesota:
PREDICTION: AL FRANKEN (D) BY 2
Another super-close race. With 99% of the vote in, incumbent Norm Coleman leads radio commentator and former SNL writer Al Franken by 336 votes-out of over 2.4 million. This initiates a statewide-recount, which probably will be over in a couple of weeks. My prediction: the absentees go overwhelmingly for Franken (who has actually been in Iraq and Afghanistan for the USO-Coleman, from my knowledge, has not gone to Iraq or Afghanistan), who wins by my margin.

1. Alaska:
PREDICTION: "I'LL TELL YOU IN A FEW DAYS"
Well, I forgot to tell you. But after Sen. Ted Stevens' conviction on seven felony counts dealing with ethics, I thought that challenger Mark Begich would win in a landslide. But don't think Stevens will trade in his suit and Incredible Hulk tie for an orange jumpsuit yet-with 99% of the vote in, Sen. Stevens leads by just over 3,000 votes. There are more votes coming in through early voting and through absentee ballots that may see Begich win this, but it will be especially close. I think that along with a "Bradley effect," the widely talked-about polling phenomenon, we have to add the "Stevens-Young effect": In the state of Alaska, people will say that they will not vote for those who were or are in ethics scandals (i.e. Stevens and House Republican Don Young, who won by 7 points in spite of polls saying it would go Ethan Berkowitz' way by near-double-digits), but will instead-causing a massive polling breakdown.

So, that's how the Senate races look. In the end, the Democrats will have at least a 57-43 majority in the House-enough to work with, especially when you consider that President-elect Obama may appoint a Republican such as George Voinovich (OH), Olympia Snowe (ME), or Arlen Specter (PA) to his Cabinet, allowing Democratic Govs. Ted Strickland, John Baldacci, or Ed Rendell, respectively, to appoint one of their own.

In other news, Democrats gained a governorship, with Jay Nixon winning the gubernatorial election in Missouri. Republicans gained a governorship, though-in Puerto Rico, with Luis Fortuño, former non-voting delegate, defeated Anibal Acevedo-Vila. Democrats now control 29 offices of governor, with 21 offices held by Republicans.

In the House, Democrats gained 24 seats (along with Puerto Rico's non-voting delegate), making a 259-176 majority. Democrats also gained, as of post, 4 State Houses, according to AP, bringing their control of state legislatures to a score of 27 to 14, with 7 ties and the nonpartisan Unicameral in Nebraska. Democrats won in New York State Senate, gaining control (with my state Senator, Malcolm A. Smith, becoming Majority Leader!!!), gained seats in Alaska, where they now officially hold a tie, and caused a split of the Ohio legislature, winning their Senate.

Here's a tentative map of the new State House control:

Expect a few new posts in the coming weeks, as we transition back to our normal posts.

We're getting closer...

2008-11-03T22:57:00.002-05:00

...To Election Day. It's one hour away. Here's the latest polling data:

On Electoral-Vote, Obama has led 353-185 in the Electoral College for the last two days, picking up Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia, in theory. The Senate (including Sens. Sanders (I-VT) and Lieberman (I-CT)) will theoretically be held by Democrats, 58-42, with Alaskan Mark Begich, the Udall cousins, Mark in Colorado and Tom in New Mexico, Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, Kay Hagan in North Carolina, Jeff Merkley in Oregon, and Mark Warner in Virginia picking up seats in theory, with the battle between Al Franken and Norm Coleman in Minnesota being a statistical tie.

In the latest tracking polls...
- CBS News (Obama +13)
- Diageo (Obama +5)
- Gallup Expanded (Obama +9)
- IBD (Obama +2)
- Opinion Research (Obama +7)
- Pew (Obama +6)
- Rasmussem (Obama +5)
- Research 2000 (Obama +7)
- Washington Post/ABC News (Obama +11)
- Zogby (Obama +6)

FiveThirtyEight reports in the latest calculations that Obama will theoretically win 346.5-191.5, with a 98.1 possibility of victory, while the Senate will move 59.1-60.9Democratic. Obama will most likely win somewhere between 291-378 electoral votes. Among the more interesting simulations:
-Obama has a 31% likelihood of a landslide (>375 EV's)
-Obama has an 84.05% likelihood of winning the election while losing Ohio and Florida.

Some things to look at, hour by hour (all Eastern Time):

7:00: Polls close in Virginia, which will really be a bellwether for the way the race will go (along with having an important Senate race), Indiana, another swing state(which is generally one of the fastest to call), Kentucky-where there is a dogfight in the Senate between Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Bruce Lunsford-and Georgia, where there is another battle, this time between Jim Martin and incumbent Saxby Chambliss.

7:30: Three big states: Ohio, North Carolina (watch out in the Hagan/Liddy Dole race!) and West Virginia. 'Nuff said.

8:00: Polls close in Florida, Mississippi (home of a race between sitting senator Roger Wicker and former governor Ronnie Musgrove), Missouri, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

8:30: Popcorn break as the numbers come in-perhaps a call???

9:00: Polls close in Arizona, Colorado (Mark Udall-Bob Schaffer race, along with a swing state), Louisiana (thrown into near-toss-up territory in the last few days), Minnesota (Franken-Coleman race), New Mexico (swing state and Tom Udall race), and South Dakota

9:40: My prediction for a virtual call.

10:00: Polls close in Iowa, Montana, and Nevada.

11:00: Polls close in California (look at the Prop 8 vote), North Dakota, and Oregon.

11:20: I go to sleep.

1:00 AM: Alaska polls close. You've got problems if you stay up this late.

Stay tuned for tomorrow's live blog, right here on Notepad. Also, if you're in the New York area, you can go to "Election Plaza" at Rockefeller Center, where you can see the NBC shows tape along with seeing the numbers come in at 30 Rock and the rink, or at Times Square, which will be the headquarters of ABC's coverage.

On the Importance of Service to Our Nation

2008-11-03T22:26:00.002-05:00

In approximately 24-and-a-half hours, we will know the winner of this most historic election. Indeed, the two presidential candidates have become the most polarized candidtates since, in my opinion, 1800, when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson went at it. However, there is one thing in common: a dual call to service for the American people. For which I wholeheartedly agree: service to one's nation is not just a virtue, but a necessity. One must serve their nation, for they must give back to the country that bore them. The rights of the people are inalienable, nor are the responsibilities.

There is one single act that can somewhat absolve the need for service: voting. Voting allows for the change in power that is necessary if change is requested. As the Beastie Boys said, "You gotta fight for your right to party!", and you've got to fight for the right to change your government. For if someone retains power, we can complain all we want, but we had the ability to do something about it. In short: vote. It will help you in the long run. To quote Monk, "You'll thank me later."

However, we must serve beyond this point. Every point when there was a crisis in this nation-World War II and 9/11, for example-we came together to serve our nation and do our part. In World War II, we had our food rationed, children collected tin cans, and we all sold war bonds while women went to the workplace-and baseball, too-when the men were at war. After 9/11, we came together and made a stand against the people who attacked us (but that all changed when this president took advantage of it-but that's another post). And we must continue to serve. Be it in terms of volunteer fire and EMS departments, reading to children or senior citizens at a library, or what have you, doing one's part is a necessity.

Volunteer, and vote.

Top 5 Reasons to Vote for the candidates

2008-11-02T21:40:00.002-05:00

I originally wished to make this two different posts, but due to time constraints, I had to consolidate...

Only 4 percent of the electorate in the United States has faced the ultimate voting dilemma-who in the world am I voting for? Indeed, this is a dilemma, for the reason that the candidates have shown their policies, their strategies, their views, their goals, and their biographies, to the best of their ability-and then comes the question aforementioned! In fact, as the New York Times reports, some undecideds have considered the use of a coin flip to decide their vote. Rather than using coin flipping, plucking petals from a flower, or using the ultimate decider- “Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe”-here’s some reasons to vote in either direction:

The Top 5 Reasons to Vote for Barack Obama (in ascending order):

5. He has voted judiciously: Sure, the National Review said that Obama was the 4th-most liberal member of the Senate. But why, then, would William F. Buckley endorse Obama? Because this report is a farce. Obama has crossed party lines in terms of CAFE miles-per-gallon standards, on foreign policy with Richard Lugar (R-IN), and even confirming John Roberts as Chief Justice. However, he voted against funding in Iraq because they didn’t have timetables, and was against ultra-right justice Samuel Alito.

4. He’s served in the community: Maybe this isn’t especially important in the grand scheme of things, but being a community organizer, he did have responsibilities-to help citizens get what was needed on a small scale. And he’s fought for this ever since.

3. If you’d like the environment to be changed: Obama is for putting more funding into alternative fuels, while still having clean coal resources and offshore drilling involved; however, the latter is more a spoke rather than a hub of the project. Indeed, Obama’s policy is not unlike the Pickens Plan, which I support.

2. If you want to end the war, he’s your guy: Sen. Obama has proposed a 16-month withdrawal from Iraq, with all troops eventually leaving the country. Instead of focusing on Iraq in the “War on Terror”, he will instead focus on Pakistan and Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden probably is.

1. He’ll fight for the common worker: Being a site that advocates neo-populism-a return to Populist politics, fighting for the common worker-I believe it is important to view the economy by the common worker’s stance, and solving it using that standpoint. And the Obama campaign will do that-by giving a tax cut to those making under $200,000, and having those making 200-250 thousand not having a tax increase. The increase only comes to those making over a quarter-million dollars a year. Also, he’ll strive to increase jobs, especially in terms of infrastructure and “green-collar” jobs.

Top 5 Reasons to Support John McCain:
5. If you don’t have healthcare and you can get a policy really, really cheap: McCain will give a tax credit of $5,000 to families that do not have healthcare-but will tax all benefits given by employers. So, if you get a good plan, you’ll be taxed-and the net wouldn’t be good, as your taxes would, in reality, increase. But, if you have absolutely nothing, and you’ve got a friend in the healthcare industry, you’re in pretty good straits under McCain’s plan.

4. You’re pro-life: McCain is against Roe v. Wade, and would appoint pro-life justices, but would want it decided by the state. McCain is for choice in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother-but not the health of the mother. Gov. Palin, on the other hand, is against all types of abortion.

3. You work in the oil or nuclear industry: McCain’s energy plan is centered around two things: offshore drilling, and building forty nuclear plants within four years. Ultimately, McCain’s plan is merely a ploy to gain the funding to the oil and nuclear lobbies (just as Obama is for gaining the funding of the clean coal and oil lobbies, I’ll admit), but the rest is fairly solid: giving a prize to those who find new ways to lower emissions and further increasing CAFE standards, for example, are good policies from where I’m standing. Just one question to ask Sen. McCain: Where the hell are you going to put the nuclear reactors?

2. If you are a soldier in Iraq who supports the war: McCain supports seeing what is going on in Iraq in January, and going from there. Of course, based on his “100 years” idea, he might be insinuating opening up permanent bases in Iraq to keep the peace. It looks like the tide is turning militarily, but is it turning politically?

1. If you make a lot of money: McCain supports giving tax cuts-good. McCain also supports giving the largest tax cuts to the rich-good if you’re rich.

I do care who you vote for, yes. But I also care about how you vote. Thus, tomorrow’s post includes voting: “On the Importance of Service to Our Nation”. Remember to vote, and then read Tuesday night’s live blog, beginning at approximately 6:30 PM right here. Expect some regular “issues” posts, along with a Thanksgiving post, “The Paddys”, and much more as the months rage on.

Just another reminder...

2008-10-31T22:38:00.000-04:00

Hot Senatorial Races

2008-10-23T20:45:00.003-04:00

A few months ago, Notepad did a very early coverage of the senatorial elections. Now, let's cover the top 10 closest campaigns, according to Electoral-Vote and FiveThirtyEight:

10. Colorado: Wayne Allard (R) is retiring at the end of this Congress, leaving the seat open-but remember, this is a state that has been quickly shifting left; they have a recently elected Governor (Democrat), Senator (Democrat), and they control the state legislature. Mark Udall, Democratic Congressman from Boulder, is currently leading Bob Schaffer, a former congressman and current oilman. The polls show that Mark Udall is leading big-a 94% likelihood of victory, says FiveThirtyEight-but, hey, ten's a round number and I only have got four close races. By the way, Mark's cousin, Tom, a Democratic congressman, is leading big in New Mexico against Steve Pearce in Pete Domenici's (R) seat. PREDICTION: UDALL BY 15

9. Texas: John Cornyn, inexplicably, is winning only by six points to Rick Noriega, a state representative and Afghanistan war veteran (who came in first in a five-man primary that included-no joke- a man named Gene Kelly. GOTTA DANCE!!!) This is unbelievable that it is this close in the polls, and it has continued to go up since late August. This may be a seat that the DSCC will put money in, but I don't think that they will win it. PREDICTION: CORNYN BY 7

8. New Hampshire: Let's face it, if George W. Bush lived in New Hampshire, his name would be John E. Sununu. He's only voted 84% of the time with Bush, but, to steal a quote from Sen. Obama, "I don't want to take a 16% chance on change." He's for the war in Iraq, voted to suspend the right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantanamo, and voted against renewing the assault weapons ban. That's not to say he's been terrible, but Jeanne Shaheen, former 3-term Governor, would be better. In her six years in Concord, she'd reformed healthcare for children, shown her pro-choice standpoint by repealing a law that would make abortion a felony in the state, and had been a fervent supporter of early education. But she only has an 8 point lead in the polls, after having led by almost twenty. PREDICTION: SHAHEEN BY 6

7. Kentucky: This isn't the most surprising shift, but Mitch McConnell is in trouble late, after having led by almost 20 points to veteran and one of the founders of Vencor, a healthcare company. McConnell, simply put, has voted with Bush on Iraq-a death knell for any candidate. He's also cited as one of the leaders in the "do-nothing Senate" they always talk about. McConnell is now only ahead by 4 points, and can fall victim to the Obama effect. PREDICTION: LUNSFORD BY 1

6. Georgia: I'll just appropriate a quote from Muhammad Ali to describe Saxby Chambliss: "He's a bad man!!!" After running a campaign in 2002 that involved smearing Vietnam veteran, triple-amputee Max Cleland, who earned a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in Vietnam, comparing him in advertisements to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Now, he's again in hot water, for-guess what!-being for the war in Iraq! And who is he running against now? A Vietnam veteran!!! It just keeps getting better and better. Except this time it's not Cleland, but Jim Martin, former Georgia state representative. He's for a staged withdrawal from Iraq, and with the Obama effect in Georgia, this might turn, as well-he's only down by two in the polls. PREDICTION: MARTIN BY 3

5. Oregon: Gordon Smith's a really nice guy. I mean a really, really nice guy. He's a Republican who has crossed party lines and got the job done. But we said the same about Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island just two years ago, when he was defeated by Sheldon Whitehouse-not because he did anything wrong, but that he was a Republican. This looks like it's having the same effect for Jeff Merkley, who is leading by 4 points in a recent Research 2000 poll. PREDICTION: MERKLEY BY 5

4. Mississippi-B: In Mississippi-A, Sen. Thad Cochran (R) will cruise to a victory. However, in the Mississippi-B race, where Roger Wicker (who was appointed to the Senate in Trent Lott's seat, after the latter resigned to become a lobbyist last year) is in a dogfight with former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. Musgrove wasn't the most popular governor in Mississippi(he divorced his wife in mid-term, and was part of a controversial ordeal with the divisive Mississippi state flag), and he won't be a favorite with the rest of the Democrats (he's against same-sex couples adopting children, much less getting married; is for putting "In God We Trust" in public schools; and wished to keep the Ten Commandments in the State Capitol). But, let's face it-he's had a good stand on education, and is against what's going on now in Iraq. This race has been nailbiting-Wicker's leading by just 1 point in the latest poll-and the Obama effect may cause this to turn. PREDICTION: WICKER BY A FEW THOUSAND

3. North Carolina: This one is the surpriser of the entire campaign. The fact that Obama is doing well in North Carolina: stunning. The idea that Elizabeth Dole, running for a second term, is losing to Kay Hagan, an unknown state senator? Amazing beyond one's wildest dreams (or nightmares, depending on who you support). Along with her service as president of the National Republican Senatorial Committee-boy, she did a great job!, she's voted with Bush 92% of the time. This is more fire for Hagan, who has gotten support in the form of rallies from Senator Obama, and she's also been strong on education. PREDICTION: HAGAN BY 3

2. Minnesota: Norm Coleman-poor, poor Norm Coleman. Again, not a terrible guy-in fact, he used to campaign for Democrats. But he's been for Iraq from the beginning-and that's where Al Franken comes in. The former comedian (but that doesn't mean he's not funny anymore) and political commentator has been to Iraq (he's done several tours for the USO) and has been fighting very hard the last two years. Let's face it, at this point in the campaign-where Franken and Coleman are tied-this is priority number 1 for the Democratic Party. PREDICTION: FRANKEN BY 2

1. Alaska: Ah, the corruption capital of this nation. Home to Don Young, indicted Congressman (who will probably lose to Ethan Berkowitz come next Tuesday); Sarah Palin, VP nominee and proven to be unethical in the Troopergate scandal; and Ted Stevens, who is right now, as I write this, having a good shot to have his political career decided by 8 women and 4 men. Stevens is on trial for violations of ethics acts, with the decision probably coming in the next couple of days. That will probably be the deciding factor in this campaign between Stevens and Mark Begich, mayor of Anchorage, the state's largest city. If Stevens is found guilty, Begich will win, probably by at least 5 points. If he's acquitted, Stevens might win, although there's still a possibility. Rembember he's the guy who brought you the "Bridge to Nowhere"-but also remember that he's seen as the breadwinner for Alaska on that front. Will that play a role? PREDICTION: I'LL TELL YOU IN A FEW DAYS

Expect a feature post tomorrow, "On Maverick Status". I will also post, by Monday, a Campaign 2008 Spotlight on the presidential candidates, and "Declaration of the Rights of the municipal New Yorker".

100 Minutes After the Debate

2008-10-16T00:06:00.002-04:00

Make it 4 for 4.

Senator John McCain needed a huge momentum swing in tonight's debate; he needed a win with both burdens-the burden to not lose, and the burden to truly win. But Senator Barack Obama would have none of that, counterbalancing McCain's plans with a solid set of his own, and taking attacks in stride, while making his own against McCain.

Here are the decisions from the Network 3, the Cable 3, PBS' The News Hour, Mark Halperin of TIME magazine's "The Page", and Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's "The Fix":

CBS: McCain looked disrespectful and fatigued; not Obama's best performance, but still a win.
NBC: Not a game changer; fairly neutral debate.
ABC: Obama "perfected the 'rope-a-dope'"; McCain couldn't change momentum, but still performed well.
CNN: Lean Obama; McCain looks better than last debate; "worst debate" for Obama
MSNBC: Obama win; big win on intangibles; McCain didn't attack directly.
Fox News: Obama clearly won Miami focus group; panel disagreed.
The News Hour: Neither elaborated on the economy; a tie.
Halperin: McCain wins, A- to B; "does it matter?"
Cillizza: McCain did not get "knockout blow", but did perform very well.

I also have CNN's polling data (there's more today!):
All polls have a margin of error of +/- 4%, with the breakdown of those polled being 40% Democrats, 30% Republicans, and 30% independents.

Who did the better job?: Obama, 58%-31%
Favorability Ratings:
Obama, originally 63-35 favorable, is now 66-33 favorable
McCain, originally 51-45 favorable, is now a 49-49 tie

On party breakdown, Obama won Democrats 88%-5%, independents 57%-31%, with McCain winning Republicans by an underwhelming 68%-18%.

On who will fix the economy, 59% believed Obama would fix it better, compared to 35% for McCain; on Healthcare, 62-31 Obama, and on taxes, 56-41 Obama.

On who portrayed themselves as the better leader, Obama won 56-35, and 70% found Obama more likeable, compared to 22% who found McCain more likeable.

Here's my notes on tonight's debate:

>Obama showed that he could present himself on a variety of issues, including on social issues; his answer on abortion was probably the clincher of the night, as he substantiated his opinion rather than just simply asserting.

>McCain was able to diversify his claims on education, which was important, as he went beyond simple talking points-but it was something I thought Obama did well throughout.

>I think that every news station got it right when they said that the winner of tonight's debate was "Joe the Plumber", the Ohio voter (and McCain supporter) that spoke with Sen. Obama yesterday and made headline news in the New York Post. "Joe the Plumber" is now Sen. McCain's best friend, as he made 21 separate references (with Obama making a few in retort) to the man-1 reference every 4 minutes and 15 seconds; in contrast, he only said "my friends" once, and he never used the word "maverick". Could this be a shift in the McCain-and the American-lexicon?

>McCain attacked on Ayers and on ACORN, but Obama did the most important thing-he rose above it, showing that at least one glimpse of that "changing of politics" is still there. McCain just couldn't stick those claims to him.

Here are my round-by-round assessments on the victor of tonight's debate:

Economy: While Obama was able to diversify, McCain came right around in circles. Obama was also able to tie McCain to Bush. Win Obama.

Campaign Strategies: This one goes to Obama, because McCain really could not win unless Obama truly got screwed from claims of his associations with Ayers. Knocked down statements about Ayers, ACORN, and Rep. John Lewis, while going after McCain on the statements made at his rallies.

Energy: Again, Obama was able to diversify his claims-while McCain was kind of stuck showcasing nuclear energy and offshore driling (although he did a better job of bringing other things to the forefront), Obama was able to show the broad spectrum of the energy debate, and how he would implement a variety of alternative energy sources, along with showing the need for fuel efficiency, which had the CNN "tick-polls" buzzing-it was roofing for about a minute. Win Obama, but it was kept close by McCain.

Healthcare: This segment was a true turning point for Obama. He was able to present his plan, while continuing to deride McCain's. Meanwhile, McCain was on defense more than offense about his plan. Win Obama.

Social Issues (Abortion): This one was a slight win for Obama, for the reason (as stated above) that Obama could truly go in-depth on his reasoning to support abortion, along with refuting claims of his prior views in Springfield, while McCain gave a simple assertion.

Education: This one I viewed as a tie. Both candidates presented their views clearly and well and, while I support Obama's policy (but not as vigorously as the rest of his policies), I was pleasantly surprised that McCain sees more than just vouchers as a way to get out of things. An important attack by Obama was on Phil Gramm, who basically said that the youth was a special interest group and not all special interest groups can be attended to.

Intangibles: As in the prior debates, I gave the win here to Obama in the first half-hour. McCain didn't look at Obama until the second half-hour, was sighing often, and kept interrupting Obama when he spoke.

Overall victor: Obama, but McCain put up a good fight-this one isn't the "game changer", but I think that, instead of a "win by knockout", it'll be a "win by decision" for Obama, contuing the sports analogy, Obama has "run the clock out" by providing no positive effect for McCain this evening.

Stay tuned to Notepad for Campaign 2008 Spotlights on the four major candidates, at least 4 feature posts, a handicap of the senatorial elections across the land, what really happens in the Electoral College, and a special Election Night live blog.

Debate Live Blog

2008-10-14T22:57:00.002-04:00

360 Minutes Before the Debate

2008-10-14T22:54:00.003-04:00

After three straight Obama/Biden wins, John McCain and the GOP are desperately trying to swing their momentum. The Electoral College projections have been at their highest point so far this campaign, with Obama leading 361.4-176.6 on FiveThirtyEight and 357-181 on Electoral-Vote, not to mention an almost 96% chance of an Obama victory. Tonight's debate at 9:00 PM at Hofstra University may be the last chance for the McCain campaign to swing the momentum back. Tonight's theme is domestic policy; it's been a large part of all the debates so far, and it seems like both are getting better at this portion of the debate.

Here's what I think should be looked at in tonight's debate:

>Will he or won't he?: That's the question that everyone's asking of John McCain, who's gone negative, gone more negative, and has now had to backtrack and pick up the mud he slung over the past week on '60s Weathermen leader William Ayers, whom Obama had worked with in the 1990s. At rallies last week in Ohio, McCain had to confront claims from supporters that Obama was "an Arab", "a terrorist", and that we have to fear an Obama Administration. Also, political flames have been stoked by lower-level members of the GOP, such as the Virginia head of the Republican Party, who compared Sen. Obama to Osama bin Laden, because both "have friends who bombed the Pentagon." If McCain doesn't attack in tonight's debate, it will only show the hypocrisy of his campaign. However, if he does go negative, will Sen. Obama fight back with, say, the Keating Five scandal, or delving into what Rolling Stone magazine delved into in their newest issue on Sen. McCain's military record?

>Does Obama have an advantage?: With tonight's debate being about domestic policy, something Sen. Obama and the Democrats generally have an advantage on, Obama seems to have the edge in tonight's debate. However, with recent economic changes and in the past week-and-a-half, through an economic roller coaster ride (first 1500 points down last week, including a 777-point drop, then 953 points up yesterday alone, and now, at press time, an over 500-point drop in the last two days), a global bailout in Europe and a focused bailout in the U.S., the economic meltdown of Iceland, and the seemingly global endorsement of regulation with the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Economics to Paul Krugman, it is important now more than ever that we truly see the economic policy of the two candidates. With the microscope put on, we'll see how Obama and McCain do.

>Does Obama have home-field?: With tonight's debate in Democratic stronghold New York, it will be interesting to see how the crowd melds tonight's debate.

Tonight's debate, at 9:00 PM Eastern Time, from the Mack Sports Center at Hofstra University on Long Island, NY, will be moderated by Bob Scheiffer, former host of the CBS Evening News and longtime host of Face the Nation. Stay tuned to Notepad for a special live blog coinciding with tonight's debate, starting at 8:45 PM. Then, expect circa midnight a post-debate wrap-up, with in-depth analysis from myself, the Network 3, the Cable 3, and more, along with polls from the major networks.

NEWS FLASH-Palin Report Unveiled...And Post-Debate Remarks

2008-10-10T20:48:00.002-04:00

Before we begin with the regularly scheduled post-debate remarks after I settled down, we have a big news story coming from Juneau. The Alaska State Legislature's bipartisan investigation on the firing of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan by Gov. Sarah Palin (R), the Vice Presidential nominee for president, has been released by a unanimous 12-0 vote. The findings of the report state that, Gov. Palin unethically stepped in to fire Mr. Monegan and the claim that he was fired for not terminating state trooper Michael Wooten (the former brother-in-law of the Governor) is true; however, it is not the exclusive reason, and the Governor followed all procedural rights and requirements, as stated in the report by Stephen Branchflower, leader of the investigation: "Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her consitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."

What do I make of this? I think that this will be another mitigating factor for Palin (as we haven't seen them already); she was put on the ticket as a "Washington outsider", but now she is seen as corrupt and possibly in need of disciplinary action. However, will it affect the campaign? Possibly, although there are a boatload of other things flying around that I will elaborate on in this post.

Click on the post title to get the full PDF file of the report by the Alaska State Legislature (NOTE: This file needs the Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in to work; also, it's 263 pages long, so it's not recommended for a connection with a low bandwidth).

And now, back to our regularly scheduled blogging...

Obama got a huge boost from the debate on Tuesday. States such as Georgia, Arkansas, even Montana are in play. According to FiveThirtyEight, Obama is behind in Arkansas only by 7 points, 5 in Georgia, and just under 5 points in Montana. Obama even has a chance to win not one, but two electoral votes in Nebraska: since they are one of the only two states (along with Maine) that apportion electors by district, along with the at-large electors for the senators (which will, without question go to McCain), Obama is only behind by 6 points in East Nebraska, and by 4 1/2 points in Omaha. Overall, FiveThirtyEight has a projection of a 348.3-189.7 for Obama in the Electoral College, along with a 90.9% chance of victory, while Electoral-Vote has Obama leading 343-184, with the state of Missouri tied. According to Electoral-Vote, Obama leads in swing states Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada, while McCain leads in Indiana and North Carolina, which has inexplicably become a swing state. There are also 235 Strong Democratic EV's (meaning that the polling data shows that it is double-digits in favor of Obama), so Obama has to only to hold a couple of states that are in the "Weak Dem" category (i.e. Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Florida) to win.

However, the level of negative attacks by the McCain campaign-and its supporters-is frightening. Governor Palin and others have embarked on a quest to make Obama and William Ayers sound like they were separated at birth, despite the fact that they were born over 30 years apart. Cindy McCain said that when she found out Obama voted nay on a defense spending bill because it didn't include a timetable "sent a cold chill down [her] spine"-even though McCain voted against an almost identical bill, that did have a timetable! Finally, smaller, local-level campaign managers have gone on to use incessantly Obama's middle name, Hussein. Bobby Maye, campaign chairman in Buchanan County (VA), went as far in an editorial as saying that Obama would "hire Ludacris to paint the White House black." The McCain supporters, though, are the scariest of all. Frequent chants of "terrorist" and "kill him, kill him" have been made by supporters at rallies when Obama's name is mentioned. Some supporters have gone so far as to call him "an Arab." Others have said, "Bomb Obama." The McCain has fear-mongered, and they have gone to far. McCain supporters have gone to the point where they will support killing Obama. The attacks on Obama's credibility have been so great that Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) declined McCain's invitation to have a joint rally (Coleman is in a very tight race, behind Democratic candidate, comedian Al Franken). The fearmongering must stop; people have to learn the facts. I respect Sen. McCain, but I think that he has gone to far, and has to go back to being reasonable in his attacks. This is an important point in history: we have seen the point at which people are most polarized in a presidential campaign since 1800.

We leave now with Senatorial projections. On FiveThirtyEight, the Democrats will have 56 senators to the GOP's 42, with the 2 independents, come January 2009, while Electoral-Vote has a projection of 58-41 Democrats, with the final seat, North Carolina, being a flat-footed tie between Former Gov. Kay Hagan and incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole. However, the states of Kentucky (where Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is only up by 4 to challenger Bruce Lunsford), Mississippi-B(where Sen. Roger Wicker [who replaced Trent Lott after he resigned last year] is up by 4 to Former Governor Ronnie Musgrove), and Georgia (where smear artist Saxby Chambliss [I'll have more on him later] is leading former state representative Jim Martin by 6) are moving towards going blue.

Tomorrow (I just can't do it tonight), I will post my next feature, "On Maverick Status". Sometime this weekend, I'll also post the next of the Campaign 2008 Spotlights on Sen. McCain, handicap the hottest Senate races, and post the next feature post, "On the Importance to Impeach the President". Also, stay tuned to Notepad on Wednesday for the final presidential debate, from the Mack Sports Complex at Hofstra University on Long Island, NY. I'll be presenting not only pre-debate reports 30 minutes before the debate and post-debate reports 90 minutes after, but also a live blog during the debate-so I can show the points I generally write in my debate notebook for you, the reader.

100 Minutes After the Debate

2008-10-08T00:14:00.001-04:00

(This post was begun at 11:24 Eastern Daylight Time, and ended at 12:13 AM Eastern Time. The uploaded time is below)

We now see it is evident that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has 90 minutes to survive and change the tide in the presidential election. Although there are 27 days remaining until the presidential election, Sen. McCain has only one platform remaining: next Wednesday’s debate, the final debate of the campaign, from Hofstra University in Long Island, NY. McCain simply didn’t change the tide in the momentum held by Sen. Obama (D-IL), and he’s simply running out of time.

Here are the decisions from the Network 3, the Cable 3, PBS’ The News Hour, and TIME magazine’s “The Page” by Mark Halperin, in order of channel number in the New York City market:
CBS: Tie, and no effect from debate
NBC: Obama gets win on foreign policy; tie overall.
ABC: Obama wins; kept game from being changed.
CNN: Obama wins
MSNBC: Tie, but lean Obama, McCain showing that he is “swinging and missing.”
Fox News: Obama wins overall; McCain wins on economy.
The News Hour: Obama wins; proved he was presidential
TIME: Obama wins, but not a game-changer; Obama B+, McCain B

And some more info, in the form of polling data:
CNN:
CNN had dial-polls (‘tick-polls,’ as I like to call them, because they change by the second) among a focus group of uncommitted Ohio voters, sequestered in a library at The Ohio State University, and they were just as they were in last week’s VP debate; when Obama spoke, the tick-polls shot up-especially among women-while when McCain spoke, it was the Columbus Morgue-absolute flat-line. Among the focus group, 12 said that Obama had won, 10 said McCain had won, and 3 thought it was a tie.

Among the polls performed (all of which had a margin of error of +/- 4%):
Among who did the better job, Obama wins 54%-30%.

For opinions of Obama, 64% of people think favorably, up from 60% before the debate, with 34% thinking unfavorably, down from 38%.

For opinions of McCain, there was no change-it’s still 51%-46% favorable.

CBS:
CBS only had a post-debate poll this time around (at least, I didn’t see the dial-polls-they may have done them): 39% said Obama had won, 27% said McCain had won, with 35% saying it was a tie.

Here were some of my observations from this evening’s debate:
>The first thing that jumps at me is this quote:
“It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.
You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me. I have fought time after time against these pork barrel -- these bills that come to the floor and they have all kinds of goodies and all kinds of things in them for everybody and they buy off the votes.”

That one? THAT ONE?! The McCain campaign has justified it as rhetoric used on the campaign trail, but I think of it as two things: first, it’s patronizing and disrespectful towards the Senator (he has a name, and he has a title), and it shows that McCain can’t shake his caricature of being a doddering, angry old man.

>From there, things got a bit more mundane. McCain didn’t go after Obama using Rezko, Ayers, or Wright-maybe he’s not willing to do that. Obama linked McCain to Bush well, distanced himself from Bush, even linked his energy policy to JFK’s statement on the space race. The turning and clinching points both came in the foreign policy section: after McCain used his catchall, “he doesn’t understand,” in terms of Obama and foreign policy, Obama said this:

“Well, you know, Sen. McCain, in the last debate and today, again, suggested that I don't understand. It's true. There are some things I don't understand. I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are setting up base camps and safe havens to train terrorists to attack us.
That was Sen. McCain's judgment and it was the wrong judgment. When Sen. McCain was cheerleading the president to go into Iraq, he suggested it was going to be quick and easy, we'd be greeted as liberators. That was the wrong judgment, and it's been costly to us. So one of the difficulties with Iraq is that it has put an enormous strain, first of all, on our troops, obviously, and they have performed heroically and honorably and we owe them an extraordinary debt of gratitude. But it's also put an enormous strain on our budget. We've spent, so far, close to $700 billion and if we continue on the path that we're on, as Sen. McCain is suggesting, it's going to go well over $1 trillion. We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq at a time when the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus, $79 billion. And we need that $10 billion a month here in the United States to put people back to work, to do all these wonderful things that Sen. McCain suggested we should be doing, but has not yet explained how he would pay for.”
He took what McCain said about him not understanding-an attempt to show him as just a new face-and went right back after him with his words.

The clincher was this: Sen. McCain had just quoted Teddy Roosevelt, that he spoke softly and carried a big stick. Obama then asked for a follow-up and, once granted, he said this:

“Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don't think is an example of "speaking softly."
This is the person who, after we had -- we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, where he said, "Next up, Baghdad."
So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan -- the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.
This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I'm president.”
Obama went right on the attack on this one; at this point, I kept waiting, and waiting, and waiting, but nothing came from McCain to make up for this.

Here’s my take on the debate, going section by section:

Economy: The economy section took approximately 30 minutes, according to CNN, and it was the first issue discussed. I thought both had a good amount of clash, and that both presented their platforms well. This one was a tie.

Energy: While McCain couldn’t get the ball rolling past nuclear plants and offshore drilling, Obama was able to talk about his diverse plan for energy, comparing his goal of being energy-independent in 10 years with JFK’s goal of getting a man on the moon within 10 years. McCain also ended with giving a plus to Obama, saying that Obama did in fact support nuclear power as part of his campaign. Obama gets a big win.

Healthcare: Obama expressed his healthcare plan concisely, and attacked McCain’s to begin. McCain did not. Obama also linked his policy to his own story, making him more real. Obama wins the round.

Foreign Policy: Both the turning point and the clincher in this round; while McCain kept repeating, going back to Iraq, Obama tied it all together, and clashed with McCain. Obama wins big in this round.

Closing: The final question was, verbatim: “What don't you know and how will you learn it?” I think Obama did well answering this question, saying that his wife has a longer list of what he doesn’t know, tied it back to his own story, and tied it back to the common voter. McCain had a good closing, and it almost matched up with Obama’s, but I give the win, just barely, to Obama on this 1-question round.

Intangibles: I awarded this one to Obama in the first half-hour; while McCain looked confused, forgetting the name of one questioner-in mid-answer-standing in front of Brokaw while he was reading the end script on the teleprompter, and also angry, pacing often(maybe he didn’t like the barstool-like chairs), crossing his arms, and sighing often á la Al Gore, circa 2000, Obama was calm and looked presidential.

The victor tonight was Obama; he ran the gamut of categories with excellence, while rebuking McCain’s claims.

Tonight’s “Reagan-o-meter”, the night’s acknowledgements of Ronald Reagan, was only at three. A new feature tonight, the “My-friends-o-meter”, was at 17 uses of the phrase, “my friend,” or, “my friends”-one use about every 5 minutes!

The final debate will take place at 9:00 PM Eastern Time, from the Mack Sports Complex at Hofstra University on Long Island, NY, on Wednesday, October 15th. Bob Scheiffer, host of CBS’ Face the Nation, will moderate. Notepad will follow the debate before, during, and after, with pre- and post-debate coverage, and a live blog for the ninety minutes.

Friday on Notepad, I provide some additional thoughts from tonight’s debate, and post-debate polling data, and “On Maverick Status.” On Monday, a Campaign 2008 Spotlight on John McCain, and “On Our Duty to Impeach the President.”

30 Minutes Before the Debate

2008-10-07T21:00:00.000-04:00

(This post was begun at 8:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, and completed at 8:58 PM EDT; the time in which it was uploaded is listed below)

“When I was walking in Memphis
Walking with my feet ten feet off of Beale
Walking in Memphis
But do I really feel the way I feel?”
-Marc Cohn

After two blasé wins for the Democrats in the debates of Mississippi and Missouri, we have reached the closest thing to the People’s Debate: the “town-hall” debate, from the Curb Events Center at Belmont University in Nashville, TN. The debate, moderated by retired NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw (still a Special Correspondent, and interim Meet the Press anchor, for NBC), will feature questions not only from the moderator, but also from the audience, and even from the Internet. Here are some pre-debate observations and things you should look at for tonight’s debate:

>McCain has the upper hand (or does he?): The McCain campaign has stated in the past that a town-hall format is his specialty, and asked the Commission on Presidential Debates for 10 town-hall debates. However, McCain has made some of his biggest gaffes at town-hall events, including his infamous “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran” song, appropriated from the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann”, and his statement when asked if we would stay in Iraq for 40 years, “Why not a hundred?”

>McCain is on his last legs: You can see the way McCain’s wheels are coming off from the current campaign language. For the first time this campaign, McCain is directly attacking Sen. Barack Obama’s merit, with Gov. Sarah Palin going after Obama for his relationship on a charity board with William Ayers, leader of 1960s radical organization Weather Underground-even though in The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s second book, he had expressed that Ayers was, essentially, a nut. Will McCain himself follow the line of desperate mudslinging this evening in Memphis? And will Obama respond with his own mudslinging, most likely on the subject of Sen. McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five scandal?

>This may be McCain’s last shot: With only one debate remaining (and the topic being domestic policy, an Obama stronghold), Sen. McCain may have his one final shot to break Obama’s momentum; while a win can turn the tide and bring him surging back in the polls, a loss may clinch a win for Obama as the number of swing states shrinks; Obama now leads 349-174, with the state of North Carolina still tied, on Electoral-Vote, winning in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia (McCain’s got Indiana and West Virginia, but is even slipping in Montana, Mississippi, and Georgia [the latter two have fierce Senate races going on]), while FiveThirtyEight has Obama winning 345.4-192.6, with an 89.2% probability of victory.

Tonight’s debate, from Memphis, Tennessee, begins at 9:00 PM. Expect a post-debate report, with reactions and polls from the Network 3, the Cable 3, and more circa midnight.

Further Post-debate Remarks

2008-10-04T21:20:00.003-04:00

A few things I wanted to talk about, now that we've had time to think about the debate:

First of all, Palin said 21 things that were either misstatements, things that were accidentally alack of fact, or outright lies, as reported by MSNBC. That's a non-fact every 4 1/2 minutes! Among her statements alack of fact: It's McKiernan, not McClellan who is the General in Afghanistan, she was against divesting funds for Sudan from the Alaska budget (umm...this would be called a lie), troops in Iraq are not down to pre-surge levels.

Second, Palin sounded (and acted) astoundingly like George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004-even using his campaign slogan, "A reformer with results" in one of her responses! She even did the winking-which Bush did in the town-hall debate in 2004! I'm surprised that she didn't start going off on how being governor was "hard work" or saying that she's a "compassionate conservative."

Third, Palin's record shows that she's definitely not what one would perceive to be a maverick (By the way, next feature post: On Maverick Status): she was an alumna of GOPAC, the Gingrich-nurtured PAC whose mission is, "the premier training organization for Republican candidates for elected office." Not exactly a beacon of change when her political education comes from the home of GOP spawn.

Finally, some great polling data from two sources I'm going to include in the "Favorite Links" section of The 'Pad: electoral-vote.com reports that, if put in an Electoral College format, Obama beats McCain in a landslide, 338-185 (with the state of North Carolina now tied), and a Senate of 58-42 Democratic, and FiveThirtyEight.com reports that Obama leads the Electoral College, 333.2-204.8, that Obama has a winning percentage(probability that he will win the election), of 84.4%, and that the Senate will have a composition of 58-42, as well. Obama has an 68% chance of winning Florida, an 80% of winning Virginia, an 87% chance of winning PA, a 67% of winning Ohio, and an 89% chance of winning Michigan, while the possibility of an unheard-of North Carolina win is 50-50.

Before I end, here are some posts that will be coming soon on Notepad:

-Senate Swami: Predictions in the hot Senate races this November
-On Maverick Status
-Campaign 2008 Spotlights on John McCain, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and Joe Biden
-On Our Duty to Impeach the President
-And, of course, pre- and post-debate coverage of the final two debates between Senators McCain and Obama(I'll try to do a live-blog for the final debate at Hofstra)

90 Minutes After the Debate (47½ Hours Until Tina Fey)

2008-10-03T00:34:00.001-04:00

(This post was begun at 11:59 Eastern Daylight Time, and completed at 12:32 EDT. The time of upload is listed below)

Well, it certainly wasn’t a game-changer. By next week, tonight’s vice-presidential debate will be in the past and probably won’t be talked about in this 24-hour news cycle. Neither Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) nor Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) were able to meet the burden of true victory-that not only had they brought their own selves to a higher level, showing that they could be the vice president, but also that their running mates could be president, and that their opponents could not-both were able to meet the burden of guaranteeing that neither would truly lose-in other words, no one was a flop. Here’s the opinion from the Big 3, the Cable 3, along with PBS’ The News Hour(of which moderator Gwen Ifill-who, as usual, did a wonderful job-is a senior correspondent) and Mark Halperin of TIME magazine:

ABC: Both did well
NBC: An even debate, Palin gained title of “better surrogate”, but no effect would come of debate in the long run
(CBS I’ll talk about later)
CNN: Palin did a good job of refuting the CBS interview; Biden “had the best debate performance of his life,” and won the debate overall.
MSNBC: Fairly neutral
Fox News: Neck-and-neck; Palin led part of debate and “passed the test”
The News Hour: Previous interviews with Palin will “disappear”; Biden had solid performance; neutral debate.
M. Halperin’s The Page: Palin and Biden tied; B Grade for both.

Here’s some polling data to go with it:

CBS: Dial poll (tick-poll, as I call it) was Biden’s all night; many undecideds leaned to Biden; most important issue of night (and issue that got highest tick-poll results) was Iraq and Biden’s remarks on it. Poll showed 46-21 Biden victory, with one-third of those polled deeming it a tie.

CNN: Tick-poll focus group had 1 or 2 each solidified for McCain and Obama from tonight’s debate; ½ said they were leaning Obama...Poll results (all with margin of error of +/- 4 %) show that by a margin of 51-36, Biden did the best job; 64 percent saw Biden do better than expectations, 20% saying he met expectations, and 14% saying he was below expectations; 84 percent saw Palin as above expectations, 8% meeting expectations, 7% saying she was below expectations...of those who were “like you”, poll leaned Biden; in terms of “in touch”, 50-44 Biden; those who were a “typical politician”, 70-21 Biden; “bringing change”, 53-42 Biden. Of Palin’s qualifications, originally it was 54-42 saying she was unqualified, after the debate it is now 53-46 saying she is unqualified.

MSNBC: had only one poll, stating it was 46-21 Biden, with 3% deeming it a tie.

Here’s my take, on the debate as a whole:
>Too many times I was yelling at the TV at Governor Palin, telling her either to answer the question, show respect, or pronounce nuclear (that’s NEW-CLEE-AR, not NUKE-YOU-LAR) correctly; by the first half-hour, I had given “Intangibles” to Biden (more on that later).
>While Palin was more on the defensive about Sen. McCain’s record, Biden not only attacked Senator McCain directly, but linked him to policies of Bush and Cheney; the latter was, in my opinion, the prescient attack of the entire debate.
>There was a lot more dialogue compared to the last debate; Palin wanted to be warm and cozy with Biden, asking at the onset if she could call him “Joe,” but often came off as pretentious.
>Then two turning points of the debate were Biden’s slaughter of McCain on Iraq (this was not only my personal turning point, but also the point where tick polls reached near-capacity), and the closing statement, as he brought it all back home, not only in terms of linking, for one last time, McCain’s policies to Bush, but also bringing it home, as he did often tonight, to Scranton and Wilmington. Just before the closing statements, I said to myself, “Joe’s got to bring his back to Scranton, he’s got to bring it back to the train rides,” the latter meaning what he hears with the common worker on his nightly commute back to Delaware, and he did it; the second point was the true clincher.
>Tonight’s “Reagan-o-meter”, the amount of times a Republican candidate references Ronald Reagan, is 3: two name-drops, and a use of a Reagan quote. The last debate, it was 4, so perhaps Sen. McCain thinks higher of Reagan than Gov. Palin.

Here’s my take on the individual issues discussed tonight:

1) The Economy: I thought that Biden owned the discussion on the economy; by diversifying his claims about the economy, he was able to bring out the entire Obama plan, while Palin was stuck running around in circles on tax cuts.

2)Energy and Environment: I originally gave it to Biden whole-hog, but I’m going to ultimately call it a near tie, leaning Biden; Palin kept coming back to energy, and was pretty knowledgeable, but kept coming back all the time to drilling in Alaska, while Biden presented the whole field.

3)Social Issues: This one was a quickie, and it was a flat-footed tie; I really can’t find anything more to discuss other than the fact that they both agree on same-sex marriage and civil rights for same-sex couples; against the first, for the second.

4) Foreign Policy: This one was going to Biden the entire time, featuring the big turning point of the debate.

5) Closing statements: Biden made the best closing statement, bringing his message altogether, and tying it with his main story.

6)Intangibles: Biden looked more vice presidential (whatever that means), he was more dignified, and seemed to have more poise, while Palin seemed like someone picked off the street in terms of her preparedness and ability to stare Biden down.

In all, the victor was Biden, but not in a runaway fashion, nor a ‘game-changing’ result.

On Tuesday, October 7, at Belmont University in Nashville, TN, Senators McCain and Obama will return for the lone ‘town-hall’ debate, moderated by NBC’s Tom Brokaw; on Wednesday, October 15, the final presidential debate, with the emphasis on domestic policy, will take place at Hofstra University on Long Island, NY, moderated by CBS’ Bob Scheiffer. Both of these debates will take place at 9:00 PM ET, and will be on the Big 3, the Cable 3, PBS, C-SPAN, and many, many other networks along with radio broadcasts.

Stay tuned to Notepad for pre- and post-debate analysis and information for the remaining debates.

25 Minutes Until the Debate

2008-10-02T20:54:00.002-04:00

(This writing was begun at 8:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, and completed at 9:00 PM EDT; it was uploaded at the time below)

25 Minutes Until the Debate

Many a time they speak about the ‘game changer’: a variable-an ‘x-factor’ so volatile that it can dissolve on previous spectrum of thinking, and create a whole new one. Tonight may be that ‘game-changer’ in St. Louis, Missouri, as Washington University will be the site of the lone vice-presidential debate, between Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). Or, better yet, they’re going against each other’s running mates. There is no possibility that they will only go after themselves-they may not go after each other altogether, making it a prime-time edition of a Sunday morning talk show, a battle of surrogates. Either way, the ‘game changer’ most likely hinges on the performance of Gov. Palin, who will either sink the chances of the McCain campaign, or be the savior of the GOP, snapping back the momentum at a point where momentum changes so little. Here’s some things to look at:

Palin’s Going In With the Bar Low: The past two weeks, every time Gov. Palin said something, she plumbed more depths in rhetoric. Palin bombed the interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC News, Katie Couric of CBS News (just name one! One Supreme Court case!), and even Sean Hannity of Fox News. Apparently, not only is Tina Fey of 30 Rock and Saturday Night Live getting laughs-from her interview transcripts-but even has lost the support of The View commentator, Survivor contestant and It seems as if the McCain-Palin ticket is pulling something much like Leo McGarry of The West Wing, bringing expectations down enough so that a mediocre performance is a win. But this is a tapeworm playing limbo here-the bar’s near the floor of the Field House Gymnasium at Washington University of St. Louis as possible.

Palin’s Going in with little preparation: Gov. Palin did little prep work for tonight’s debate, holding camp for just a week, and holding it near a creek (not exactly the place for debate, but definitely the place for meditation and tai chi).

Biden’s Going to be Careful: If Sen. Biden attacks Sarah Palin in any way, he will be derided as being sexist. However, eventually he has to attack-otherwise, he’ll be considered too calm. So he’s got to pick his fights very carefully; which will have the biggest effect without producing the biggest harm-the biggest pro-to-con ratio?

So, here’s my take on what they have to do:

Governor Palin: She’s got to breathe, and stay awake, and not look like a total idiot. If she does that, she doesn’t win, she just meets her burden. For a win, she has to show that she has experience, and that if she doesn’t have experience, she can at least compensate for it with intelligence and savvy-while explaining how that doesn’t work for Senator Obama. She also has to look vice-presidential.

Sen. Biden: The onus was previously on Gov. Palin, but now the burden is previously on Sen. Biden. He’s got to bring zingers to Sen. McCain, but also bring down Palin-in other words, say as little words as possible, while making Governor Palin cry by 10:30 PM tonight.

Stay tuned circa midnight for tonight's post-debate report on Notepad-I'll give my results and the results of the Big 3 and the Cable 3.

90 Minutes after the Debate

2008-09-26T23:09:00.003-04:00

Well, it wasn't Lincoln against Douglas. But tonight's debate in Oxford, Mississippi, was the candidates' first showing since the National Conventions. Here are the opinions on the debate from members of the Big 6-the Network Big 3, and the Cable Big 3, to go along with PBS' The News Hour, whose anchor Jim Lehrer moderated:

ABC-Tie, but slight lean to Obama
NBC-Tie, but focus of debate (foreign policy) goes to McCain
CBS-Tie, but focus group of independents gave lean to Obama
The News Hour: Lean to Obama
MSNBC-Tie
CNN-Tie, but with slight lean to Obama; 52-38 in poll, with huge leads on both foreign policy and economy.

The main consensus of the news networks is one I believe in as well: that tonight's debate was, roughly, a tie. Nothing campaign-turning came out of this debate, but it provided a few eye raisers:

>Could anyone answer a question? It seemed as if, in the first half of the debate(the debate changed formats from simply foreign policy to both economy and foreign policy), no one could directly answer the questions that Mr. Lehrer put towards the candidates.
>Why was McCain smirking? And why was Obama smirking? I think they both got under each other's skins, and I think this will make the campaign even more interesting as we move on.
>The only moment I saw where a candidate took advantage of the direct exchange that was one of the unique features of these debates was in the debate section about Iraq, in which Sen. Obama hammered to McCain what he was wrong about in his view of Iraq-that was one of the turning point of the debates.
>I counted up all of John McCain's references to Ronald Reagan-it was only four references, surprisingly.

Here's my take:

Economy: No one really took a large lead, especially being such an important situation. Obama was the one the most on the offensive, so I give it to him. Energy was interspersed within this part, along with the foreign policy component, and I found that Obama did well in this part, actually showing the diverse nature of his policy, unlike McCain, who just focused on his offshore drilling and nuclear power(note to Sen. McCain: if you're going to build 40 nuclear reactors, where ya gonna put 'em?)

Iraq: While one of the two critical points of the debate (in my opinion) came here, no one really took the lead and went on the offensive-this secition was a tie.

Afghanistan and Pakistan: Here was the second turning point of the debate, in which Obama called out McCain on his war-hawk bravado, including his "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" singing earlier in the campaign. Gave this part of the debate to Obama.

Iran: I gave Obama the win in this round, but only slightly. The round centered around talks with President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad without preconditions, and whether or not Henry Kissinger reported such a claim. Obam aheld his own and was able to also do some attacking in this round.

Georgia and Russia: It sounded as if McCain had a 20th Century, Cold War-esque strategy for how to deal with Eastern Europe, but Obama never capitalized and went after McCain on it. Overall, a tie.

9/11 and Closing Arguments: Obama wins this round via his closing statement; he tied everything back to the story of his father and the American dream-the perfect crystallization point.

Intangibles: Obama kept is signature cool for almost all of the debate, although signs showed that he was getting a little irritated by Senator McCain. But McCain looked a bit more agitated from Sen. Obama's claims. I give the intangibles to Obama.

Obama wins the overall victory, but not by much. McCian saved himself from defeat in November tonight, and kept further momentum for Obama at bay. Expect a 1-2 point bounce for Obama.

On Thursday, October 2, in St. Louis, MO, Gwen Ifill of PBS' The News Hour will moderate the lone Vice Presidential Debate between Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), from Washington University in St. Louis. The Tuesday thereafter, on October 7, Senators Obama and McCain will debate again, this time in a town-hall setting at Belmont University in Nashville, TN, moderated by Tom Brokaw of NBC. The final debate will occur on Wednesday, October 15, the final presidential debate, on domestic policy, will take place at Hofstra University in Long Island, NY, moderated by Bob Scheiffer of CBS' Face the Nation. All debates will be at 9:00 Eastern Time. Stay tuned to Notepad for pre- and post-debate coverage, one half-hour before and and ninety minutes after each of the debates.

30 Minutes until the Debate

2008-09-26T20:29:00.002-04:00

Well, it might not of happened. But Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) will debate in half an hour in Oxford, MS at Ole Miss. Here's what you should look for in tonight's debate:

1. The debate topic was flip-flopped: Sen. Obama was able to change the topic from domestic issues to foreign policy, to show what people believe to be lacking really isn't. If McCain is on the defense this debate, that could do it.

2. Obama did his homework: Sen. Obama and his advisors have been holed up over the last two weeks in Clearwater, FL, for debate camp; McCain didn't start studying until just two days ago at the Morgan Library in New York.

3. Obama's got the momentum: He's got a 10 point lead in most tracking polls, and electoral-vote.com has Obama leading 286-252. I think that if Obama does well tonight, that it might just be over.

Tonight's debate, from the Ford Center for the Performing Arts at Ole Miss, from 8:00-9:30, will be on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.

Stay tuned after the debate to Notepad for a post-debate wrap-up post(there might be video).

Daily Brief-49 Days until Election '08

2008-09-16T23:10:00.003-04:00

Here's a new feature we're starting on Notepad, a daily brief of the news of the day in the 2008 Campaign; we'll be doing it now until Election day:

After a Dow drop of 500 points, including its first trip under 11,000 points since 2002, the worst day the Dow and the S&P 500’s worst day since 9/11, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the buyout of AIG by the Federal Reserve, and the impending sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, the 2008 campaign has swiftly changed to the economy. And Senator John McCain (R-AZ), has the same plan he has for the last two years. Siding with his former economic policy adviser, Senator Phil Gramm, who put us where we are in the first place by allowing deregulation and the entrance of speculators (the so-called “Enron loophole” of 1999), he has repeatedly stated that he is for deregulation and decreases in taxes on capital gains, windfall profits, and other business-related items in an attempt to maintain the practice of Reaganomics. Completely disregarding his other adviser, Robert Rubin, a senior adviser at Citigroup, which went down almost 3 bucks yesterday alone, and has been one of many companies who have suffered from the sub-prime mortgage crisis. However, while Sen. McCain has shown that he is more of the same, Senators Barack Obama(D-IL) and Joe Biden(D-DE) have actually put out a plan that will work, including real economic stimulus, the creation of a windfall profits tax, and raising taxes on the wealthy to give the common worker a fair shake with a tax cut. So when John McCain is attacked in two new ads put out by the Obama campaign yesterday evening, or how yesterday Sen. Biden attacked McCain as “Bush 44”, then you know why.

New Electoral map polls show McCain leading, but not with a majority. McCain leads Obama 257-247, with 34 electoral votes-in Pennsylvania and Virginia-tied, although Virginia is blue in a SurveyUSA poll, with Obama up by 4%.

New polls show Obama leading McCain by only 5% in New York(a lead that will strengthen since yesterday’s problems on Wall St.), McCain leading Ohio by 3-4 points in three different polls, Colorado by 2, and Florida with a 5 point lead(putting the state and its 27 electoral votes squarely in the red).

The prospective Senate, as per the polls, is 56-44 Democrats, with (in the closest races): Norm Coleman(R) leading Al Franken(D) by 2%, Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage leading Sen. Ted Stevens by 2% in Alaska, and former Governor Ronnie Musgrove(D) behind to Sen. Roger Wicker in Trent Lott’s former seat in Mississippi.

Check in tomorrow for the news of the day, appearance information from the two campaigns (maybe in your area), and the Top 5 reasons not to vote for John McCain(and it ain't got a thing to do with Sarah Palin).

Remarks of the DNC and VP Choices

2008-08-30T22:41:00.002-04:00

Well, the presidential campaign has almost officially begun. Barack Obama, Senator from Illinois, is officially the Democratic nominee for President, with Senator Joe Biden of Delaware as the nominee for Vice President. On the GOP's side, Senator John McCain of Arizona will oficially become the nominee for President in St. Paul, MN next week, with Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his presumptive running mate.

However, the true interest, beyond the choices of Vice President by the two major parties, is the jabbering of analysts about the choices. So, without further ado, my jabberings:

Democrats pick Joe Biden: I think that, while not the best choice, is a good one. Biden agrees with Obama on almost every issue(exceptions include nuclear energy-Obama is open to it, Biden is not-and NAFTA-Obama against, Biden for), he has almost 35 years of experience in the Senate, brings oodles of foreign-policy experience to the table, can speak to blue-collar workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, considering his blue-collar upbringing, and, since the DNC, really shows a teamwork component in the Obama-Biden campaign. However, one has to wonder: will Biden be able to win over the disgruntled Clinton supporters come November?

A quick bio of Sen. Biden:

*Born in 1942 in Scranton, PA
*Moved to Delaware at age 10
*Went to University of Delaware, majoring in history and political science
*Passed the bar in 1969 after studying at Syracuse University Law School
*Married his first wife, Neilia Hunter, in 1966
*Spent two years in the New Castle County Council(1970-2)
*After being elected to the Senate in 1972, his wife and infant daughter Amy were killed in a tragic car accident while shopping for a Christmas tree-his two sons, Beau and Hunter, survived.
*Did not want to take the oath of office(keeping his priority as a father over being a senator), but eventually did at the hospital bedside of his sons
*Since his first days as senator, takes the train every day to return to his family in Delaware.

Ratings of choice(all out of a possible 10 points):
Leadership & Experience: 10
Cohesiveness between candidates: 7
Efficiency to win voters: 7
Overall rating: 8

Republicans choose Sarah Palin: Days before this choice was made, even the most accurate of radars did not have Gov. Palin, the freshman governor of Alaska, on it. Sen. McCain could have picked Sen. Joe Lieberman(CT) or former Gov. Tom Ridge(PA), and the Republicans would have the White House(Lieberman probably wins over Jews in Florida and wins Connecticut, and Tom Ridge would probably help win Pennsylvania-a 42point swing!)) or he could have picked former Gov. Mitt Romney(MA), or Gov. Tim Pawlenty(MN-who wins you Minnesota, a 20-point swing). Or Gov. Bobby Jindal(LA), who despite being a freshman governor was a popular 2-term congressman, or Gov. Jodi Rell of Connecticut(also helps you win CT, a governor who cut through the corruption left by her predecessor), or Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas. But, instead, Sen. McCain picked Palin, governor for only 18 months and before that, a self-described "hockey mom" mayor of Wasilla(pop. 8471). I've been saying this week, that Brooklyn Cyclones GM Steve Cohen has more experience than Palin, as 'mayor' of a 'town' of over 8500 'residents'(fans at KeySpan Park) for 8 years. And the idea that Palin will help win over independents and disgruntled Clintonites? Give me a break! Palin is pro-life, pro-gun(she has a lifetime membership in the NRA and one of her hobbies is hunting), pro-drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, anti-polar bear(she's been noted for desiring to take the polar bear off the Threatened Species List), anti-same-sex marriage(even supporting a Constitutional amendment banning it), and doesn't believe that global warming is man-made. She was also for the "bridge to nowhere", although now she's against it(flip-flop, anyone?) Also, there is the discussion that, being in state politics for only 30 months, and not knowing much about foreign policy, that she is not ready to be "one heartbeat away" from the presidency, especially behind 72-year-old McCain. She's also only met with McCain once before becoming the nominee, showing possible lack of cohesion. Finally, can Palin provide the clout to win voters over, especially in the swing states, as good as or better than the potential VP's aforementioned?

Ratings:
Leadership & Experience: 4
Cohesiveness: 6
Efficiency to win voters: 6
Total: 5.5

And now, a quick bio of Gov. Palin:
*Born in 1964 in Sandpoint, ID
*Moved to Alaska as an infant(refuting the claim that she's a "lifelong Alaskan")
*Was a star athlete in high school, both on the track(the namesake for her first son, Track), and in basketball(where she earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" as she brought her high school the state championship)
*Came in second in the 1984 Miss Alaska beauty pageant
*Holds a degree from the University of Idaho in broadcasting journalism, and aspired to be an anchor on ESPN(possibly the namesake of her first daughter, Bristol?)
*Spent four years in the Wasilla City Council after being in the PTA, then became mayor for two terms
*Held a position for two years as Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission before winning the gubernatorial election in 2005
*Currently holds an approval rating of 76% in Alaska; however, she is also under investigation by a bipartisan board in the Alaska legislature due to the controversial firing of the Alaska public safety commissioner
*Has 5 children-Track, Bristol, Piper, Willow, and 7-month old Trig

Next week, remarks of the RNC and Senate Horseraces-I finally complete writing about the senatorial campaigns in 2008.

But, to close, a few quotes from the Democratic National Convention at the Pepsi Center and Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver, Colorado:

"John McCain may pay hundred of dollars for his shoes, but we're the ones who will pay for his flip-flops." --New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson

"We can't simply drill our way to energy independence if you drilled everywhere, if you drilled in all of John McCain's backyards, even the ones he doesn't know he has." –Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer

"If he's the answer, then the question must be ridiculous." --New York Gov. David Patterson, on John McCain

"To my supporters, my champions — my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits – from the bottom of my heart: Thank you." –Sen. Hillary Clinton

"John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush over 90 percent of the time. That's not a maverick that's a sidekick." –Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)

"You know, folks, that's the America that George Bush has left us. And that's the America we'll continue to get if George -- excuse me, if John McCain is elected president of the United States of America. Freudian slip. Freudian slip." –Joe Biden

"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, but he won't even go to the cave where he lives." --Barack Obama

"For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy — give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps — even if you don't have boots. You're on your own. Well, it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America." --Barack Obama

"John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change." --Barack Obama

On Energy

2008-08-07T16:05:00.000-04:00

On July 14, 2008, the United States energy plan officially shifted. Mr. Bush’s executive order lifting the executive branch’s ban on offshore drilling on the Eastern seaboard, and pushing of Congress to do the same (at the time of this post, the House has lifted the ban, while the Senate is in their break), was not only the pseudo-“liberation from foreign oil” that Mr. Bush, presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee candidate John McCain, and the rest of the Republican Party touts, but also the death knell by the Republican Party to any further change in energy policy. To many members of the Republican Party, this is sufficient to lower the price of oil, thus gasoline, thereby solving the energy crisis in this nation- the most important issue at this stage of the 2008 campaign, as per a poll by the Washington Post and ABC.

However, in short, this is inherently incorrect in so many ways. Beyond the fact that the Republican Party supports many other projects that are the pinnacle of debauchery by the GOP towards the special interests of said party (namely ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and other members of the energy market) that I will discuss later in this post, the plan inscribed by Messrs. Bush and McCain is one that shows absolute ignorance of the progress in the field of alternative fuels in the past decade and the plans inscribed by other members of the energy field, not to mention is the exact opposite of the “compassionate conservative” or “maverick” that each of this dynamic duo claims to be. First of all, the plan comes at a point where Mr. McCain had publicly opposed offshore drilling. This standpoint would support his slowly weakening claim that he is a ‘maverick’ in the Republican Party, that he’ll go against the grain as he has in the issue campaign financing, in which he supports a plan made by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA). However, he has gone against environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, as he had previously given his word that he would not allow drilling in the Everglades, one of the sites where oil exploration would occur. Second, the plan states that oil companies would be allowed to explore and drill on the eastern seaboard, although they have parts of the Gulf of Mexico where they are not drilling! Third, the plan does not take into account the fact that many oil refineries on the Gulf have closed since their destruction from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Finally, the McCain campaign states that “we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States.” However, such simple tasks as correct inflation of tires, keeping windows closed on highways, replacing air filters, and regular tune-ups of automobiles can increase automobile mileage by great margins (for example, by simply inflating all four tires correctly, that lowers one’s mileage by 12 percent), in effect equaling the amount of gas that would be achieved by offshore drilling, and has been endorsed by the American Automobile Association, and accepted by Mr. McCain, despite the RNC’s “Obama Energy Plan” tire gauges.

The McCain Energy Plan is primarily the gimmick of offshore drilling, the Barnumian policy to solve the problem by a gimmick, a pseudo-solution-much like the great P.T. Barnum circus exit “To the egress”, a way to reduce crowding-thereby confirming Barnum’s quote, “There is a sucker born every minute.” However, this is more. This includes support of alcohol-based fuels-which in turn cause worse greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline itself and can only fuel 12 percent of consumption for vehicles alone if we use the entire corn crop in the States, ‘clean coal’-hasn’t Mr. McCain ever seen Mary Poppins? Coal isn’t clean!- and nuclear power, including building 45 nuclear plants-which not only is not safe(where the hell do you go in a meltdown?) , is not clean (where the hell do you put the waste?), is not cheap (where the hell are you going to get the many from?), and is not supported (why the hell would I want that in my backyard?), but also, the money goes to private contractors to build the reactors, run the reactors, and bring the waste to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. He’s also against a windfall profits tax on oil companies, even though ExxonMobil had $11.68 billion in earnings in the 2007 fiscal year. And he’s for closing the “Enron loophole”, which is a good thing, as it gets oil speculators out of the oil business, which lowers prices more than offshore drilling-except there’s one problem: McCain’s former economic advisor, Phil Gramm, was responsible for the Enron loophole in the Senate when it was put into HR 5660 in 2000. Conflict of interest, anyone?

Such is the reason why, this week, the Democratic National Committee has launched their ExxonMcCain ’08, deriding Mr. McCain of his views in the terms that oil companies will reap the big bucks. There’s a reason to this-they’ve given huge bucks to his campaign. Oil companies have given over $2 million to the McCain campaign, along with the Victory Fund, a joint venture between the McCain campaign and the RNC, along with other organizations-more than any other candidate so far in this campaign. Days after McCain flip-flopped on drilling, ten members of the Hess Corporation (yes, where those cute little Christmas trucks are sold) gave $28,000 apiece to the campaign. Over a quarter of a million dollars handed to the McCain campaign in 10 days, from none other than the oil companies.

One reason the McCain campaign claims to show that their platform is better than his opponent’s, Mr. Obama, is because of the fact that his platform is not specific enough, as stated by former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani. However, along with the fact that, along with the candidates’ campaign platforms being of equal specificity (which, in truth, is not much), Mr. Obama also supports the plan formed by T. Boone Pickens, which is centered around alternative fuels, such as wind power in the Midwest, CNG vehicles, to go along with some offshore drilling. It’s also a plan endorsed by Al Gore, former Vice President and spokesman for the climate crisis. If we can combine environmental with efficient, we can truly create a new great energy policy.

New Video Details

2008-06-14T23:23:00.003-04:00

So here's the big news the Notepad Team has: there will be a video show coming up for your viewing pleasure in July. From July to November, I'll be giving you all my take on the presidential, senatorial, and congressional elections. I'll be on Wednesday and Friday, probably posting it at 7:45 PM ET. If you want to send in questions to be read on Friday (I'll plan this as the "Town Hall" show), send it to Mailbag.Notepad@gmail.com, or send us a message on Skype to thenotepadshow.

If there is anyone you know that can be a guest on The Notepad Show, please, again, e-mail us, and we'll get back to you post haste.

Daniel

On Elmo and War

2008-05-30T22:31:00.002-04:00

First, a belated happy Memorial Day to veterans and those in battle abroad. Your undying support for this country is why we are one of the world superpowers. For this, this is for you.

Last week, the Senate voted 75 to 22 in favor of the new GI Bill, written by Sen. James Webb (D-VA), which would allow for the expansion of education benefits for veterans who have served for at least three years since the attacks on our nation on 11 September 2001. It is also a bill that will be vetoed by our President, who states that the bill costs too much for the Armed Forces, as it would promote people to remain in the Army for one round of service. However, this marks a long line of malfeasance towards the troops by this President. For a man such as Sen. John McCain(R-AZ) to oppose the bill, this is okay; while it is indeed odd that McCain, who is a champion of veteran’s affairs, to oppose the bill, at least he has the military credibility and experience to back up his decision. But for a man who has never served in our armed forces, never gone overseas for our country, never had one mite of patriotism aside from a flag pin- the ultimate sign of standing draped in a flag to cover the Emperor’s New Clothes-such as our president, this is out of turn.

The Presidency ought to be the greatest champion of our military’s affairs. Just before the troops’ return from World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt passed the first GI Bill of 1944, granting the majority of WWII vets to gain a college education upon their return home. In 1952, Harry S. Truman passed the Veteran’s Adjustment Act, which offered benefits to veterans of the Korean conflict upon their return home. In 1966, Lyndon B. Johnson, another champion of social reform, passed the Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act, so that, at the very least, veterans of the quagmire of a war such as the one in Vietnam would be able to go to school. These Presidents did the responsible thing. Now it is Mr. Bush’s turn to make good to his promise of “supporting the troops.”

Oh, wait. That’s right: this man believes that the phrase “support the troops” is a sentiment on a Hallmark card, or a bumper sticker, or a little magnet. In his 2004 campaign, this president joked about the troops and WMD in Iraq, which he so asserted with such vim and vigor that some even thought it was there without even attempting to connect the dots. This is the same man who will not even support timetables to leave Iraq, saying that it is a path to failure, even though soldiers are going into their second, third, and sometimes fourth tours of duty. This is the same man who went AWOL as a member of the Alabama Air National Guard to campaign for a republican senatorial candidate, and the same man who was given special treatment as a First Lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard. A man, who never wore a uniform of the armed forces, and desecrated the uniform of the National Guard, is now trying to state that what is right for the troops and what will be good is, in fact, wrong.

And the effect of Mr. Bush’s lack of care towards the veteran’s affairs have been great. Five weeks ago, Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which produces such children’s television shows as the mega-hit Sesame Street released the Talk, Listen, Connect Program, a set of videos geared towards children that need to understand that their mother or father is going to Iraq, or is returning, or has suffered a disability from what is nearly unexplainable to a child, the idea of war. While in practice, this is a brilliant idea by the folks at the USAF and Sesame Workshop, as it aids families’ reactions to the war with the use of Muppets Elmo and Rosita as their parents leave for and return from Iraq. But in thought, not only is it saddening, it is horrifying.

The reason it is horrifying is that it still has to occur; the children’s lack of understanding, the children’s cries and wails on the subject. No parent- nay, no human- wants to hear their child say, “Why is daddy leaving?” “Why has he left three times in the past five years?” “Why can’t mommy be here for my birthday; why does she have to be away?” “Why does mommy not have a real leg?” This is the despicable act of this man and this presidency, for, first and foremost, the President-not non-profit organizations, not the Joint Chiefs, not the Senate, not the House-but the President must be a champion for veteran’s affairs!

These men and women are valiant individuals, the cream of their crop, the valor of our nation-yet this president has tarnished it, and not even given one thought to polish it back to the way it was! Why is it that children have to understand that their parent won’t be around for another six months? Why do they have to understand this three, four times? Why must they understand that their parent will never be able to walk the way they did, or play catch with their children? Why do they have to understand why their parent is in a bag! Now we know. Not only does this president not have the idea of patriotism in place in his mind, but not even the idea of humanity instilled in his soul.

Sorry

2008-05-15T14:12:00.001-04:00

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. But be prepared to read the following articles:

On Elmo and War (seriously)
On Edwards, Elitism, and Ego

And also, be prepared for a Notepad video show, coming this July!

Daniel

On the Sanctity of Our Constitution

2008-01-29T17:45:00.000-05:00

It has come into light that the Bush administration is in talks with the al-Maliki administration for a long-term agreement for U.S. armed forces to stay in Iraq long-term, form permanent bases, and cause us to defend the Iraqi people, instead of the Iraqi people defending the Iraqi people, almost forever. Remember that this is the last year of the Bush administration, and that at noon on January 20, 2009, 357 days from now, there will be a new president. Also note that Mr. Bush will not go to Congress for this ‘long-term agreement’, but rather sign it himself. Not only does this President want his or her ‘hands to be tied’, but we expect our Constitution to be carried out correctly and fully. And, with the Bush administration not going to Congress for this matter, he fails in the oath he took twice.

Now, this isn’t the first time that Mr. Bush has refused to follow the Constitution and its Amendments. Suspension of habeas corpus during an occupation, and not a “case of rebellion [n]or invasion”, as stated by Article I, Section 9, Provision 2 of the Constitution, the right to privacy, a definite 4th Amendment right, revoked by the USA PATRIOT Act, the right for peaceful assembly neutered by “free speech zones”, most notably at the 2004 Republican National Convention, where NYPD officers went to meetings of protesters, promptly arresting them during their protests, generally far away from the convention site of Madison Square Garden, alleged terrorists tortured by sleep deprivation, heavy headphones to cancel out all sound, blackout glasses, bright lights during questioning, and, most notably, waterboarding, violating the Geneva Conventions-a UN document signed by the United States-and the 8th Amendment, the same alleged terrorists not given a public trial by jury, but mere military tribunals-if at all, rarely with the aid or appearance of Counsel-a violation of the 6th Amendment, the most signing statements of any President, many of which destroy our system of law(see the piece “ON Executive Orders”)and, neither last nor least, circumventing Article II, Section 2, which states that the President “shall have the power to…by and with the consent and advice of shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law…”, by using recess appointments on countless occasions, most notably for a recess appointment for UN Ambassador John Bolton, the ruthless civil servant who yells and screams at his subordinates when disgruntled. These acts neuter, circumvent, and even destroy Constitutional rights and responsibilities. And all these by a man who swore on the Holy Book to, as enumerated in Article II, Section 1, Provision 7, “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” There you have it. The President didn’t sign on to just become Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; he signed on, with the (pseudo-)support of his countrymen to protect our civil writ, what we have lived on for more than 210 years, and is a contemporary to as early as 1215. And he has destroyed our civil writ, our sacred writ without a religion, the way our country works.

And now Mr. Bush is intent on doing so again, without remorse. Mr. Bush is willing to force our next President, possibly a President of change-both potentially historically and potentially ideologically-to continue with a botched policy, a policy that results in more parents having to see their children, some merely in their teens, with disfigurements, or possibly, in body bags. The Military Times had a poll more than a year ago which stated that troops were not satisfied with the Rumsfeldian policy-a policy which continues today. They don’t want to see this; they don’t want to serve in bases perpetually. And what can the 44th President of the United States do, now that he or she would have to follow an Iraq policy identical to that of this current president? And what can the 45th President do? The 50th? The 100th?

But this goes beyond merely a continuation of policy, an aforementioned ‘tying of the hands’. This is a misconstruing of our Constitution, our system of justice. Article II, Section 2, states that “[The President] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. …” Mr. Bush cannot simply sign this into law-he must go to the Senate! It says it in black and white. And, while Mr. Bush is saying that it is not a treaty, this pseudo-pseudo-treaty cannot pass by. If it involves troops staying past 1/20/09, if it involves an extension of policy of one administration into the policy or policies of others, if it involves the alliance between or among countries, it’s a treaty. To quote the adage, “if it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it’s a duck,” if it looks like a treaty, and it sounds like a treaty, it’s a treaty. Thus, it must go to the Senate. It would be an injustice for it not to do so.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sadly, the misconstruing of our Constitution, a writ of sacrosanct civility (however oxymoronic that sounds), goes beyond the wrath of Bush. It should be noted that recently, former Governor Mike Huckabee(R-AR) said, “We should change the Constitution to fit God’s word, instead of changing God’s word to fit some modern way of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.” He may just be saying that there should be a Constitutional ban on gay marriage and abortions. First, social engineering was exactly what was attempted by the 18th Amendment, Prohibition-which was quickly repealed by the 21st Amendment; I doubt it will work in our “anything goes” society if it didn’t work then. Second, marriage is a state’s issue, not a federal issue; thus, this would violate the 10th Amendment, which states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Maybe we shouldn’t listen to what he says, some people say; after all, this is the same man who says that homosexuality is one step away from bestiality. However, maybe we should listen, and maybe he’s not just talking about Constitutional bans on gay marriage and abortions. Just as President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in his farewell speech in 1961 to “beware the military-industrial complex,” maybe we should take note and form another caveat. We must beware a theocracy, a nation run by a pastor, who takes to the “bully pulpit,” as President Teddy Roosevelt once called the presidency, with literal appeal-that is, using the pulpit for religion. We must beware of a country in which “In God We Trust” is taken too seriously. Here is a warning, a warning for all reading this to hear: beware of the religious complex. Because the Constitution, a writ of liberty to us, a beacon of hope abroad, cannot and shall not be misconstrued.

Awards!

2007-12-29T00:52:00.000-05:00

Awards!

It’s time for the inaugural, 2008 Paddy Awards-hey, every blog’s got awards, we need them too.

The Worst Lie of the Year Award goes to...

Mitt Romney! For his lie, “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.” When he was doing missionary work in France!

The Worst Lie Cover-Up of the Year Award goes to...

Pat Buchanan, covering the derriere of Mitt Romney! In response to the MLK quote, Pat Buchanan said on Hardball that he meant that he saw his father march ‘in spirit’ with Mitt Romney. He omits the fact that HE COULD NOT BE THERE TO SEE IT! I guess that Mitt was there in spirit watching his father, in spirit, with Martin Luther King. Oh, and I guess he saw, in spirit, the pilgrimage of Brigham Young.

The New Kid On The Block Award goes to...

Rahm Emanuel! After only two terms in office in the House of Representatives, the Illinois Congressman was one of the leaders of the Democratic Party, who aided in gaining majorities in the Senate and the House for the Democrats.

The Next Great Leader Award is shared by...

Garry Kasparov and Senator James Webb! I know it is an odd combination, but both will, in the future, be great leaders. Kasparov, the former chess grandmaster (and rival of IBM computer, Deep Blue) has led the opposition movement to the reign of PM Vladimir Putin for over 25 years now. I would think that, at some point, he will lead the Russians to quasi-, if not full, revolution, taking down the KGB-led government.

Senator Webb, on the other hand, is of a lighter sort. Webb, the former Secretary of the Navy and rookie Senator from Virginia, did a few great things while in office in his first year: he gave a scintillating response to the State of the Union, rebuking the President’s claims on Iraq, his region of expertise; he set forth legislation that would disallow military force against Iran without Congressional approval; and he brought further dignity to the troops, saying to the President’s face that he wanted the troops home, and wanted to “slug” him when Mr. Bush responded with the terse response, “That’s not what I asked you. How’s your boy?” referring to the Marine serving in Iraq, the soldier whose boots were worn by Webb on the campaign trail.

The Bush Scandal of the Year Award goes to...

Attorneys-Gate, the scandal in which the Justice Department fired 7 U.S. Attorneys, simply because they could fill the positions indefinitely due to the USA PATRIOT Act! In fact, a memo was procured from White House Counsel Harriet Miers saying that it was a possibility that all U.S. Attorneys would be fired.

The Political Comic Relief Award is shared by...

Dana Perino and Alan Keyes! Alan Keyes, for simply being Alan Keyes, giving us all the ‘He was running for President?’ interjection when he appeared in an Iowa debate on December 12-a debate that brought the sigh of the moderator.

Dana Perino, on the other hand, gets the award because of her relation to the three other Press Secretaries during the Bush Administration: she is unbelievably tight-lipped and will say as many words as possible to say as little as possible.

On Social Issues and Hypocrisy

2007-10-23T11:24:00.000-04:00

Over the past two decades, the alleged accolades of the Democratic and Republican Parties have been the same: while the Democrats seemingly only do well when it comes to domestic issues, such as education, the Republicans allegedly are the only people who can take care of national security and 'social issues,' the so-called 'mommy problem' for the Democratic Party. However, it is arisen over the past year that the Republicans aren't exactly as prone to exercise the social values they claim to defend. While the Dems don't agree with "Christian thinking," the GOP is doing even worse-because they undermine it while preaching it.

The perfect example is that of Senator Larry Craig, whom I believe you've heard of over the past two months. Sen. Craig, now an Idaho Hall of Famer, was found by a Minneapolis police officer to be, as Yahoo! News interestingly put it, "a homosexual ritual in order to ascertain sex." He has since been shunned and all but censured in the Senate, causing more and more pain for the Republican Party.

While we all now know of Senator Craig, we begin to forget of the other Republicans who have erred in their moral values. What about Mark Foley, Florida congressman-turned child predator? David Vitter, the Louisiana senator-turned Beltway adulterer? Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania-who made a children play and cuddle with an aborted fetus two years ago? Even Mitch McConnell, current Minority Leader-turned smear artist on 12-year-old Graeme Frost? The GOP is becomeing less and less a party ticket, and more members on an abstract wall of shame.

But it's not just the outright disgusting nature and sheer indecency of the GOP; it's their acts of hypocricy that boils the blood of Americans on both the left and the right sides of the aisle. Republican party House leader John Boehner, chastised Democrats for their views on gay marriage, and trying to create a constitutional amendment on marriage. Senator Tom DeLay of Tennessee, Republican, was the chief prusuant of the death of Terri Schiavo. the Republican Party, led on the topic by President Bush, basically flipping the bird to kids by vetoing S-CHIP, with Press Secretary Perino saying, "We won this round."

What round, Ms. Perino? The round to kill off the healthcare of 11 million children? Your partisanship would go as so far as to use children as a pawn? I'm not exactly suprised the Bush Administration is doing this-note NCLB-but to do it again? Is this the round to hurt or kill children? Finally, is this the round to go against the Preamble of the Constitution to "promote the general welfare," in a Constitution the President and Congressmen and -women swore to protect?

The GOP has always felt they had a clutch on 'moral values,' and the vote it brings. We had good Christian values in mind, they continue to say. But that was until the Larry Craigs, and Mark Foleys, and David Vitters of the world showed up, and when the people said, give the kids healthcare, while the Reps smirked, and gave a resounding 'no.' This isn't just a threat on the Republican Party, this is a slight on politics: have they any decency? Have they any humanity? Can you please, for the good of the country, so that our trust shall not be destroyed, end your hypocrisy and smearing of what is good about this nation, apologize, and go away?

Campaign 2008: Handicapping the Senatorial Elections: Part I

2007-09-29T21:47:00.001-04:00

While all eyes are on the '08 presidential elections, with their Hollywood 'frontrunners,' and their actual candidates for change, such as Rep. Ron Paul(R-TX) and Gov. Bill Richardson(D-NM), there is a very important aspect of the federal government that is yet to be decided. The Democratic Party hold what is the technical and traditional definition of a majority in the Senate; they hold 51 seats(or, rather, 49 seats, with with two independents caucusing) to the Republicans' 49. However, as has been seen throughout the 1st Session of the 110th Congress, the Democrats do not hold a true majority in the Senate; any provision will be knocked down with the threat of a Republican filibuster. The Democrats need 60 seats in order to have a true majority. Enter the senatorial elections for the 110th Senate, 3rd Session.

In 2008, the class II senators will be up for re-election. The following seats are up for grabs:
Democratic incumbent races:
Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Dick Durbin of Illinois
Tom Harkin of Iowa
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
John Kerry of Massachusetts
Carl Levin of Michigan
Max Baucus of Montana
Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey
Jack Reed of Rhode Island
Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia

Republican incumbent races:
Jeff Sessions of Alabama
Saxby Chambliss of Georgia
Pat Roberts of Kansas
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
Susan Collins of Maine
Norm Coleman of Minnesota
Thad Cochran of Mississippi
John Sununu of New Hampshire
Pete Domenici of New Mexico
Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina
Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma
Gordon Smith of Oregon
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
John Cornyn of Texas
Michael Enzi of Wyoming

Special Elections and Retirements:
John Barrasso (R) of Wyoming
Wayne Allard (R) of Colorado
Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska
John Warner (R) of Virginia
Larry Craig (R) of Idaho

The Republicans have more to lose in this election, with 22 of their seats up for grabs, compared to 12 on the Democrats' side of the aisle. Also, eight Republicans up for election are completing their first term, compared to one Dem. Finally, with the GOP's leaders struggling and retiring, and the threat of a mammoth Democratic turnout in November, the Republicans better hold on tight; they're in for a rocky ride.

Here's my take on the biggest and most open campaigns:
Democratic incumbent races:
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana:
Senator Landrieu never especially had great success in Senatorial elections, even though she is a two-term senator. Elected in a close election in 1996, and a runoff in 2002, this will be possibly the most-fought for seat by Republicans, and the only Democratic seat that I think is truly up for grabs. State Attorney General John N. Kennedy will most likely challenge Landrieu for her seat; however, with the scandal encompassing Louisiana junior senator David Vitter and the speculation that Kennedy, who has changed party ties from Democrat to Republican, may have been prodded to run by Karl Rove, may prove very costly for the Republicans during this election.

Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey:
While Lautenberg, if having not had tow separate stints in the Senate, could have been President pro tem, he is growing unpopular in New Jersey. A Quinnipiac poll from July says that only 41 per cent of New Jerseyites approve of Sen. Lautenberg, compared to 32 per cent disapproving. The 27% undecided can be the most important part of the US population next autumn, as a close election in 2006, which ended in election for incumbent Sen. Robert Menendez, can become a landslide for a Republican candidate in '08. Also, Lautenberg is growing elderly; at 84, there may be chances that he will not even run. If he doesn't run, Rep. Rush Holt will most likely take his place.

Tim Johnson of South Dakota:
Johnson suffered a brain anyeurysm, or close to such, in 2007, which forced him to miss eight months in the Senate, but will run in 2008. However, his health, and his slim victory in 2002(winning by just over 500 votes), will cause the Republicans to fight for this seat. However, with an approval rating of over 70% in South Dakota, this seat really isn't up for grabs for now.

Republican incumbent races
Ted Stevens of Alaska:
Stevens is still going through a federal investigation, along with his son, the former president of the Alaska state Senate. This may cause Alaskans to take a dislike to Stevens(for goodness sake, he's gotten into a run-in with the law). Of course, Stevens is a very popular Senator in Alaska, serving almost since statehood. If there is a big Democratic nominee, it might get interesting.
Saxby Chambliss of Georgia:
Chambliss won his seat in 2002 by comparing incumbent Senator, and triple-amputee Vietnam veteran, Max Cleland, to Osama bin Laden. These scare tactics have been frowned upon throughout the nation, and will not be tolerated when Chambliss runs again. Another Chambliss v. Cleland election?
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky:
Between rumors that it will be George Clooney challenging the current Minority Leader, and the possibility of a run by Andrew Horne, an Iraq War veteran, McConnell is in trouble. Why he's also in trouble: his ties to President Bush, which will be stressed highly in '08.

Part II next week:
Susan Collins of Maine
Norm Coleman of Minnesota
John Sununu of New Hampshire
Pete Domenici of New Mexico
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee

Retirements and Resignations:
Wayne Allard (R) of Colorado
Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska
John Warner (R) of Virginia
Larry Craig (R) of Idaho

On The Scariest Idea I Have Ever Heard

2007-08-16T00:51:00.000-04:00

According to the Thom Hartmann Program, broadcast on Air America Radio, in Family Security Matters Magazine, administered by the fascist Progress for America think tank, contained an op-ed that says what I have to say is the scariest idea I've heard, even from a fascist Bush supporter.

This article, which I haven't gotten my hands on, as it was deleted from the website and is, according to Hartmann, in a catacomb of TownHall.com, basically states that "democracy is the worst form of government," and that we should (a)take out all the Arabs in Iraq and replace them with Americans, turning the problem in Iraq into "an asset", and then, based on the 'success' of that endeavour and the support from the people and the military, in a Caesar-like maneuver,(b)declare Bush President for Life with the military by his side.

This is the martial law I have gotten nightmares about(and I have. And they're scary.) and the desecration of the Constitution that takes the cake. Democracy is the worst form of government? Modern-day democracy isn't the greatest form of government, but it is the greatest possible at this time on our planet. Of course, democracy hinders the fascists who support this idea, as that adds tariffs and taxes they have to pay for their products and the company itself.

Secondly, on the first plan, wouldn't the idea of taking out the Arabs in Iraq be mass genocide of Shia, Sunni, and Kurd Muslims, many of which are trying just to eke out a living and not fundamentalists? Why would Americans move to Iraq, to live in 110-degree heat all year, with little to no infrastructure, getting electricity only about 4 hours a day? Why would they live where enemies in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria are nearby? And why would be engage in mass genocide of those in Islam, a peaceful religion, when that would entice a billion people to go against us?

The article will be found eventually, which I'll post immediately. Later today, I opine on Karl Rove and discuss the legal ramifications of his resignation.

Why Mike Gravel Hinders the Presidential Race...And Why We're Focusing On This Now-A Campaign 2008 Spotlight Exclusive

2007-08-09T20:59:00.000-04:00

If you've seen the presidential debates, you may have seen a man staring at other candidates with vengeance, and, when he got one of few chances to answer a question, was yelling at the moderator. This man is former Alaska senator Mike Gravel. Gravel has no chance in this election-according to the Washington Post, he has raised just over a measly $11,000 in the first quarter of this year, which is probably less than he raised for his Senatorial campaigns in Alaska-and he is not even providing nor influencing actual debate. He is providing propoganda to bring down other praty members within the election.

Not that he can't provide actual debate. He was a one-man force against the draft in 1971, filibustering for five months; he was a proponent for the release of the Pentagon Papers, and has written a book, Citizen Power, discussing many influential Populist ideas.

However, in his futile quest for the White House, he has consistently spewed propoganda upon Messrs. Edwards and Obama that they have hired 'bundlers' to raise money from lobbyists and PACs, even though both candidates have said they have not taken money from PACs or lobbyists. (However, both are lying, one more than the other-the FEC reports say that Edwards recieved $20 from a PAC, while Obama has received over three thousand dollars from PACs) He has not brought up any of his ideas he has shown in writing and in his two media appearances(on Air America Radio and on The Colbert Report)in any of the debates. He is not providing debate, he is not strengthening his party, he is slowly destroying it.

But why are we focusing on the 2008 presidential election so much? Why are we going to possibly going to have a primary or caucus just after, if not before, New Year's Eve? The premise is that we are not happy with what we have now. We want this President out, and we want to have change. This is why we're having debates in August. That is why we are raising money at a rapid rate. And this is why we're coming out in rapid numbers to support whoever we're supporting.

On the Twin Genocides

2007-08-06T20:43:00.000-04:00

There have been many cases in which we have said, "Never Again." Never again should a race be attacked for just that; the same with religion; the same with nationality. But "Never Again" continues to be iterated in the case of two genocides.

You may be saying, "What do you mean, Daniel, which is the second?" The first, of course, is that of the disgraceful and disgusting high crimes of murder and rape by the Janjaweed towards those in Darfur, which has been condemned by many members houses of legislation and execution of law(but nothing has been physically done by any of the two). But there is a silent genocide; a genocide not talked about much in the media anymore. It is that which graced the latest issue of TIME Magazine, it is that which has been spoken about on the Huffington Post for a year-and-a-half by comedian Harry Shearer on The Huffington Post, and it is that which has been talked about every once in a while by presidential candidate John Edwards. It is that of the post-Katrina New Orleans, where the suffering from the poor and middle class continues.

The situation in Darfur I think you already know about, but here's a brief introduction unto the topic if you've been stationed in Iraq or have been on Air Force One(or you're just a moron) who's been watching solely Fox News for news coverage: the government in Khartoum has been allowing a proxy-war for years in the region of Darfur, which has been heightened with the desertification of Lake Chad(which probably was caused, like many other acts of desertification, by global warming-another story for another day) and the Darfurian citizens have taken up arms in rebellion. Thus, in order for the proxy-war to continue, the Khartoum government has allowed Arabian forces, the Janjaweed, to attack the rebels, with amnesty for rape and plunder. Thus, the genocide in Darfur.

However, the United Nations refuses to call it a genocide. The reason of which is such: if the UN calls it a genocide(which they finally have with UN Resolution 1657), they must deploy the blue beret-wearing UN peacekeeping troops. The US doesn't want to get in on it, because, as I have said time and time again, there is no oil under the Darfurians' feet to fight for. Thus, the terrible act of genocide is reduced to, in the words of William Daniels, 'piddle, twiddle, and resolve,' in houses of legislation around the world.

The second genocide is that in New Orleans; the US Army Corps of Engineers didn't finish the levees that would save the Crescent City from a hurricane, and what came-a hurricane! Destruction of the entire city ensued, and evacuation in the city did not occur for four days. However, in e-mails later recovered from former FEMA director Michael Brown shows that that was done conscienciously. President Bush gave a famous speech in the city square of New Orleans. Little do many know, however, that, after the speech, power was turned back off in the area. They turned them on, did the speech, and turned them off. Due to recovered documents, along with my personal opinion, we know that the lack of help in New Orleans was done intentionally, leading to my statement that it is genocide.

And the genocide includes today. The levees have not been rebuilt. Houses are being built in New Orleans for the rich, and the poor are being pushed out. The Ninth Ward of New Orleans is still not rebuilt, destroying a great and historic part of the city. The public school system has been virtually destroyed, replaced by several private 'charter' schools, which do not have unionized teachers(which is exactly what the Republican Party wants). Finally, the New Orleanians have continued to be ignored in their pleas to increase provisions against hurricanes, as the money and staff of the CoE has gone to Iraq.

And the genocide will continue, until we mean 'never again,' instead of just using town squares as photo-ops and using hot air.

Debating on-and with-The Tube

2007-07-23T22:29:00.000-04:00

The CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate has just been completed, a revolutionary idea using the Internets we know and love-and keep this blog in existence. The debate featured 100% user-generated content via YouTube. There were also performances of YouTube-like videos from each of the campaigns, which are critiqued below. The concept and its carrying-out was done very well, and will be used for a Republican debate two months from now. Here’s my report card on the candidates:

1. Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT): Excellent answers to questions, strong on his opinions on gay marriage, stem cells, and the war in Iraq. Answered with competence and rhetoric.
17/20

Video: Tied for best video of the night, with both informative and entertaining factors. 10/10

Combined total: 27/30-BEST IN SHOW AWARD WINNER

T2. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY): Clinton did okay in this debate, answering most questions well, but in my mind did not succeed in her prime directive: breaking away with the rest of the Democratic pack. She did, however, answer all the questions with power and poise, especially which that is the “Are you feminine enough?” question, asked by the person of the aforementioned “Are you black enough?” question. 15/20

Video: Best tagline: “Sometimes the right man for the job is a woman.” Great idea as well, with the various statistics. 9/10

Combined total: 24/30

T2. Gov. Bill Richardson (NM): Answered his questions quite eloquently, especially on education and on energy. I also loved his statement on optical scan voting, which is 99.9% accurate, across the country in federal elections. He still has a long way to go, but this is the way to do get there. 17/20

Video: Not the greatest concept in the world (office setting, with Gov. Richardson peering in while others are talking about him), but got some important points about him. 7/10
Combined total: 24/30

T2. Sen. Joseph Biden(DE): Did very well in answering questions on taxes, education, and was very eloquent-sometimes too eloquent, as usual. 16/20

Video: Basically looked like a regular ad on television. Not that that is bad, but there was a need for a YouTube like ‘edginess.’ 8/10
Combined total: 24/30

T5. Sen. Barack Obama (IL): Obama answered the “Are you black enough?” question with poise, along with questions on the war and defending himself against Mr. Gravel when he attacked him, but was not able to separate his political views from his religious views, very important in the Democratic base. 14/20

Video: Best editing for a video, which took from stump speeches, and was very inspiring.
9/10
Combined total: 23/30

T5. Mr. John Edwards(NC): In my opinion, he did the worst of any of the candidates(other than Mike Gravel), squirming away from some questions, taking a very long time to explain himself instead of being blunt, and being too centric on poverty, which will hurt him-people will most likely see him as being only fighting for the poor instead of everyone-although I do of course agree with his statements in the category of the populist points on poverty. 13/20

Video: Tied with Chris Dodd for best of the videos, rebutting critics statements on his haircut; showing clips on issues like Iraq, New Orleans, and Darfur, saying to the effect of “These issues or my hair-what do you choose?” 10/10
Combined Total: 23/30

T5. Rep. Dennis Kucinich(OH): Was a bit to focused on his cell phone component to his campaign, but was, as usual, excellent in his answers to the entire spectrum of questions-not that he got to speak very often. 16/20

Video: Worst of the videos; felt like a Head-On commercial, with him repeating basically the same thing, his text messaging system to “send a message to The Whitehouse[sic].” 7/10
Combined total: 23/30

8. Mr. Mike Gravel(AK): As usual, he was very weird, yelling at the candidates, the camera, and even moderator Anderson Cooper. He did answer questions well on education and a military draft. But, he wasn’t able to strike up new debate or increase his likeability, but scare me. Very much. 9/20

Video: Short-but-sweet statements on hot-button issues such as Iraq and global warming. Was edited and performed well. 8/20
Combined total: 17/20-WORST IN SHOW AWARD WINNER

My Winners and Losers:
Winners Losers
• Christopher Dodd
• Bill Richardson
• Joseph Biden • Mike Gravel
• John Edwards
• Hillary Clinton
No Change:
• Barack Obama
• Dennis Kucinich
The Republican Debate will take place on September 17th from Florida.

Have any discrepancies? Anything to add? Comment on the blog or e-mail me at Mailbag.Notepad@gmail.com.

On Healthcare

2007-06-29T12:07:00.000-04:00

The American people just don’t understand healthcare. We believe that the best way to control our healthcare and treatment is to hand it over to the greedy HMOs to create ‘capitalism,’ in this case the euphemistic snookering of American dollars. While those in Europe and the Great White North have healthcare paid by taxes and their governments--although flawed, surgery waiting lists and all-- they still give all people, not just the rich and the exceptionally poor, healthcare.

This spin of healthcare from the modern American media, that we would cause a socialist monopoly healthcare, is complete bunk. What they don’t understand is the fact that the private healthcare system can survive, but in opposition to and in competition with what would be a country-wide form of Medicare. We’ll see who wins; the private system no one who doesn’t have healthcare can afford anyway, and the public system that would already be paid for via taxes. It’s win-win: the people that don’t have healthcare can afford it, and the rich will be able to get their plastic surgery covered by their medical plan.

And we wouldn’t have to raise taxes either; four to five percent of our tax dollars are going to Medicare and Medicaid combined; three percent of our tax dollars towards Medicare alone. Raise that number, taking any pork barrel spending out of our budget, and you have enough money to fund this.

That’s what we can do about healthcare. Of course, I did this post today to coincide with the new Michael Moore documentary, Sicko. Click the link below for a review from the Washington Post. To respond to this post(and we love responses, don’t we?), e-mail us at Mailbag.Notepad@gmail.com, or send us a comment right here on the site. Plans for a forum will come eventually on this and many more topics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=cityguide/profile&id=1137198&categories=Movies&nm=1&referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email

On the Modern American Media

2007-06-28T16:47:00.001-04:00

This week, dozens died in Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain changed heads of state, hundreds died in Darfur, and the Vice President has declared himself a member of neither the executive nor the legislative branch, while still somehow being part of the Constitutional framework.

But the main stories were the iPhone and Paris Hilton getting out of prison.

This is the plight of the modern American media-the ‘newstainment’, 24-hour news cycle owned by corporations instead of people, making it not a medium of important information, but a way for the benefit of ratings.

40 years ago, network stations never cared about ratings, but their modus operandi was for quality journalism. You had news anchors such as Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, and, a decade or two later, the Big Three anchors-Rather, Brokaw, and the late Peter Jennings. You had Bob Woodard in his prime at the Washington Post. You had news that wasn’t terribly editorialized, somewhere between the truth and yellow journalism. However, you don’t get quality journalism anymore; what do you get when you watch TV news, the most influential and outreaching medium, now? You get 5 minutes of actual news-today, generally 2008 election coverage, and 20 minutes of human interest stories.

And don’t even get me started on the Big 5 cable news networks, the ‘24-hour’ networks: MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, CNN Headline News, and Fox News. They’re really a combination of almost all government spin in prime time evening hours, with entertainment news in the other parts of the day. For example, during the Paris Hilton jailing, on MSNBC there was a ‘Paris Watch’ split-screen about 12 to 13 hours of the day. Tucker Carlson, who used to be a right-wing spinster on CNN’s Crossfire, and Joe Scarborough, a former Congressman(R-FL) who now has his own eponymous Country, were tracking Paris, as well. Somewhat respected bodies of information have now stooped to entertainment news. You let the bow tie a little too loose, Tucker. Joe, the sponsors must have gotten to you, taking your brain prisoner.

Even PBS, the broadcasting system paid for by our tax dollars, is in trouble. Recently, the conservatives in the Republican Party took control of PBS, and also took Bill Moyers, a nonpartisan journalist, off his show, NOW, after one story that angered them. They then put Moyers on a new show, Bill Moyers’ Journal, that has lesser journalistic leeway, for they would not like to see but a dent into their credibility. NOW today is a soapbox for the Republican ‘small-government’ movement.

Finally, there are 6 corporations controlling almost all of our Audio, Video, and Print Media: News Corporation, GE, Disney, Clear Channel, Time Warner and Tribune. This is like the Teddy Roosevelt-era trusts that he tried to bust, like Rockefeller and Carnegie revisited! While they preach ‘the news,’ they spew a concoction of little news, much of which is filtered to meet the corporations’ needs, entertainment, and human interest.

Here’s what we can do to make journalism what it ought to be in the States:

• Bust the trusts of the news networks.
• Make C-SPAN a network on “free television”, not cable.
• Make PBS a station controlled not directly by government, but controlled indirectly by the Smithsonian.

On 'Counterterrorism': The Interactive Debate

2007-06-28T13:53:00.000-04:00

Hello all. Let's see that those of you reading are still alive with a fun little interactivity. Anyone who disagrees with me on the topic is graciously invited to debate me. E-mail the site at Mailbag.Notepad@gmail.com and we will see what time is right for you.

Speak your mind!

On 'Counterterrorism'

2007-06-28T13:46:00.000-04:00

It is fitting that, while we are fighting a proxy-"War on Terror" in Iraq, the amount of terrorist threats against the US has totalled zero and that we have had a greater amount of people killed by being stomped on by an elephant than that of those killed in terrorist attacks emenating from Iraq. This is just a microcosm of how overtly inefficient, inhumane and unconstitutional, the most of this in the history of the democratic system, our counterterrorism system is.

Never good, it is, for the Geneva Convention, one of
the most important documents in our history, a document we as a nation signed, to be called quaint and insignificant. But that is what our current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, did as White House counsel. Because of this, we have been practicing torture instead of interrogation; not getting what we should hear, nor what is the truth, but what we want to hear. We have even, instead of correctly
and humanely interrogating our captives, sending them to countries such as Syria and Saudi Arabia so we can torture them by any means possible. When will this administration see that we signed a UN document, which, as a founding
nation of the UN, must uphold? When will our Attorneys General and President see that waterboarding is not what John Kerry did in 2004, nor a 'dunk in the water'? When will this administration and Cabinet see they are not a collective incarnation of Jack Bauer?

But it is not just this that shows the administration's ineptitude towards counterintelligence. Through a series of signing statements, executive orders, and the USA PATRIOT Act, the NSA can now check our library accounts, our mail(both electronic and of the 'snail' variety), our phone calls, and even what you're renting from your local Blockbuster. Do we, as an American society, want an
Orwellian-like NSA, CIA, DOD, and Presidency, who fight a continuous proxy-war while maintaining the ever-present shadow of Big Brother?

The counterterrorism system is a threat to everyone's civil liberties, everyone's safety, everyone's inalienable rights, as written by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and as upheld by all 41 Presidents of the United States. Not only that, it does Al-Qaida's job for them; it doesn't stop terrorism, it creates it tenfold.

I Need Help With This...

2007-06-08T20:03:00.000-04:00

I don't understand this foreign policy tactic by the Bush Administration; since Gen. Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is to retire, the Joint Chiefs will nominate an admiral. An admiral!!! Someone to control a war in a desert, on the ground...is a naval commander!?!?

Send the best reason to Notepad, and you get a great prize. The e-mail address is:
Mailbag.Notepad@gmail.com.

Enjoy!

On Bipartisanship

2007-06-08T19:39:00.000-04:00

Bipartisanship is dead. It is not on its proverbial deathbed, it is not slowly dying; it has already slowly died, and now it is dead. Quoting one of my favorite movies, The Wizard of Oz, "And she's not only merely dead, she's really, really, really dead." Yesterday, an immigration deal which no one could agree on, yet was still bipartisan, died in the Senate. And with it, as I write not in snark, nor in jest, nor in sardonism,(as is my general tone) but in anger.

Like many, I believe in the democratic system; that it was not only a way to get what is necessary on a local level, but also on a national level. However, I did not take into account the fact that there is one thing that separates all politicians: the uppercase letter in parentheses after your name.

Last night, the Democrats in control who wanted to change immigration worked with some Republicans, in a show of something we truly need: unity. An embodiment, a tenet, of the neo-Populist movement is to provide for an everlasting compromise between the two parties. However, today there is no such thing as a happy medium. Between a stingy executive branch, a legislative branch that is the most divided in history, and a judicial branch that shows malice and malfeasance towards the Constitution, we are in the most shambles. We need bipartisanship. But bipartisanship is dead.

You may be surprised that I say this, but we should look at a racial bigot: former Speaker Henry Clay. We should not look at him for his racial bigotry, but his nickname: "The Great Compromiser." With his many compromises, the House could actually get somewhere, even if the Democratic-Republican and New Republican parties were struggling to get together. And while some compromises were quite controversial in our eyes today(e.g. the Missouri Compromise), they show actually getting there. But bipartisanship is dead.

It doesn't matter that the President wanted this bill. I don't care which side wanted this bill. IT is just the fact that what killed this bill, along with dozens of other resolutions in this Congressional session, was partisanship. The Whips are stinging the backs of the Congress, and the line that they walk in lockstep in is threatening our society exponentially. Bipartisanship is dead, and this is the death certificate.

New Notepad Promo

2007-06-05T20:26:00.000-04:00

Notepad Provisionally Endorses Bill Richardson

2007-05-30T19:53:00.000-04:00

I'm proud to announce, everyone, that, with you, the readers', collective consent, that Notepad is provisionally endorsing New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for President of the United States.

More on this Friday, for another of our '08 Election Spotlights, on Bill Richardson.

With this, join the Notepad team for Notepad presents: The Debates, as we watch the Democratic Debates on CNN, including Gov. Richardson. Come to The Pecoraro Household on June 3rd at 6:47 PM for some rousing debate, discussion, and the modern American media inaction.

On Executive Orders

2007-05-30T19:07:00.000-04:00

A belated Happy Memorial Day to the dead both here and abroad fighting for our country's freedoms, and the living while praying they all come home alive and safe.

Also, I'd like to apologize for not posting for five days.

I was online yesterday, when I read about an interesting Executive Order on Countdown w/Keith Olbermann's blog. Known with the exceedingly long title of, National Security Presidential Directive 51, it is, what I like to call the "Buzz Windrip" theory.

If anyone has read Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, you understand what I mean. If not, here's the gist on this unlawful and unconstitutional Executive Decision:

This President can, in the instance of "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions,"
Make himself the leader of all three branches of government,
while making the judicial and legislative branches advisory positions.
Finally, the President has the jurisdiction as to what is considered an incident in those bounds, be it a bad day on Wall St., at OPEC, and even an election in which a Democrat will win(like, say, the '08 presidential election).

In summary, the President is destroying the concept of the Constitution, which was written to prevent a king to be crowned after declaring and winning its independence; the Magna Carta, which lessened the powers of an incompetent leader; the Warsaw Pact, which formed NATO, which tried to ally themselves against the Soviet Union empire, and even more documents. Apparently, Mr. Bush has taken all too seriously his sardonic nickname, "King George the W."

Of course, when you try to look for it on the link provided, you get a 404 error on the White House website; probably because the White House purposely corrupted it. In other words, they don't want anyone to know about this.

Mr. Bush is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, playing pretend that he is Mussolini, creating his own little fascist government in a country known as the "land of the free." Mr. Bush is trying to use the mathematical proposition of the Reflexive Postulate, that the President=the President=the President when it comes to balance of power. And he is mistaken in its use; it is used in math, not in politics. He is not the decider, he is not a king. But he will succeed, because he is already doing what he wants in the executive order-by being able to create this executive order.

Gonzo-Gate --And Commentary on the Iraq War Supplemental Bill

2007-05-24T22:15:00.000-04:00

I will respond-hastily and angrily-on the subject of the recent passing of the Iraq War Supplemental Spending Bill momentarily, but first, our scheduled commentary on the subject of the U.S. Attorney Debacle.

It is good timing on the part of the one-man Notepad Team that we speak of Gonzo-gate, a day after a evangelical law school graduate at which less than half of the graduating class passed the bar on their first try, a woman who had never taken on a court case of any kind, admitted under oath that she was given the authority to fire 8 U.S. attorneys based on political bias, gracing every major newspaper in the nation saying she "crossed the line."

First of all, who in the world gave Monica Goodling this power to hire any personnel? For a woman who had never even gotten her feet wet in the federal court system, she had the power to fire any District Attorney, not just the 8 fired, or the 26 which were planned to be fired, but all District Attorneys, because of the PATRIOT Act. Also, being a White House liaison, the Justice Department is definitely at fault; how could they allow someone to have that power when it should be in the hands of, in my opinion, the Judiciary Committee? This is ludicrous.

As for the reasons why, this scares me more. This was done to take out attorneys with cases against Republicans and replacing them with-who else?-Bush cronies. In other words, because of the wonderful PATRIOT Act, they could have taken out Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Prosecutor on the U.S. v. Scooter Libby trial, who some attorneys say is on the rise, and replaced him-indefinitely-with Rush Limbaugh!

Now my opinion on the Iraq Spending Bill. This is total cowardice by the Democratic Party. A compromise, says Mr. Reid of Nevada? A compromise, says Madam Pelosi of California? A compromise, say Mr. Hoyer of Maryland? No, this is not a compromise, this is rolling down and dying by the Democratic Party! Do they know they won both houses last November? Do they know that they won both houses because the American people, en masse, were sick of what was being done in Iraq? And what about Sen. Biden of Delaware, who has seen young men and women, in body bags, come into Dover Air Force Base? Why did he vote yes? And John Murtha? Doesn't he want to help the troops by getting them the hell out of there? And he actually has a spine?

The Democratic Party needs a spine transplant. And quick. Because they can be gone quite quickly.

On the Iraq War

2007-05-22T23:48:00.000-04:00

"I remember a sign from the Old West, that said: "Wanted...Dead or Alive."

-President George Walker Bush, on Osama bin Laden

"I don't know where he is. I just...haven't spent that much time on it."

-President George Walker Bush, on Osama bin Laden

The Iraq War should have never happened: we should have stayed in Afghanistan, hunting down our true enemy, Osama bin Laden, to the death; we should have sealed the mountains of Tora Bora; we shouldn't have left what we started to begin with; we should have actually defended our country against an imminent threat.

I've read the papers, I've read the documents, I've read the Iraq Study Group report, I've done my research: this War wasn't necessary. Neither war was necessary; this President could have read the Presidential Daily Briefing that said "al-Qaida Planning to Attack Major American Landmarks" instead of My Pet Goat.

I saw the Twin Towers fall, as did my father and the rest of my family. My uncle worked at the WTC; he survived, while a few of his co-workers in that North Tower Blue Cross/Blue Shield office didn't. And we fought a meaningless war, a preemptive strike, against the country of Iraq.

It all began with a little conspiracy circle known as the Project For a New American Century(PNAC), filled with Republican wackjobs such as Vice President Cheney, newly resigned World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle, and others. Their mission: to create a colonizing America, especially in the oil-laden parts of Afro-Eurasia. It just couldn't have been done without a "Pearl Harbor-like incident." Cue 9/11. That's why this is happening.

There are a few people to blame. One is Congress, for not coming to a compromise, especially after seeing young men and women come home in body bags, without prosthetics, without some brain functions, and with post-partum depression syndrome. The other is the President and his kitchen Cabinet, for insulating the President from reality as a whole, not able to see the men and women going through this time, not meeting the silver- and gold-star mothers and fathers, and not even making appearances at sites and 'think tanks,' that disagree with him. He won't even speak at the Cato Institute, which is libertarian. To think, this president is more right-wing than a libertarian.

Here's what we can do about this crisis in Iraq:

Open up the bidding for contracting jobs in Iraq, especially to European businesses. I believe that European businesses getting into Iraq will curry favor with Europe and score points diplomatically, which can bode well in the greater fight against terror.
Focus brigades and battalions on certain areas. Right now, troops are doing this: clearing out a city of any terrorist threats, then leaving, all for it to sprout up again. When brigades and battalions are centered in certain areas, then order can be restored on a local level, which can lead to restoration of order on the national level.
Rewrite the Iraqi constitution, to make it democratic, and not the fascist-supporting government it is after the interim American government got to it.
Help out the Iraqis, for once: restore a full 24-hours of electricity, water, &c; if you were going to "liberate" the Iraqis, you have to make it a better situation.
Finally, set up timetables to leave Iraq. We can't stay forever. We mustn't stay forever. Thus, we have to set timetables for the Iraqi government so that they can finally take control of this mess.
Redeploy troops to Afghanistan, and finish what we started.

There you go: strong, constructive ideas for what to do in Iraq. Now, where's my post as Defense Secretary?...wait, it's already been taken by Dr. Gates?...Oh well, I'm still better than Rumsfeld.

Here's a link on PNAC: http://newamericancentury.org. It's crazy, loony stuff.

Wednesday I'm off, mainly because I need a day off. Thursday: I'll be talking about Gonzo-Gate.

New Book-Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason"

2007-05-21T23:25:00.000-04:00

Here's something I forgot to tell all of you: President Al Gore's new book is out.(Yes, I said President Gore.) The title is The Assault on Reason, and is on the threat to democracy that is the current political system. I've read an excerpt in the latest issue of TIME; it's marvelous, it's eloquent, it's what Al Gore would write about the current time.

It's $15.57 on Amazon and $18.16($16.34 for members) at Barnes and Noble; I think that's worth it. If it's not worth it, borrow it from your local library. Or a friend. Or a coworker.

Read the book. Before Al Gore unrightfully falls into obscurity and political purgatory.

Election 2008 Spotlight-Chrisopher Dodd

2007-05-21T20:09:00.000-04:00

Well, you asked for it. (Right after I gave it to you.) Here's the facts about Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd:

Contrary to popular belief, Dodd is not the Junior Senator from Connecticut; while Joe Lieberman was first elected in 1989, Dodd was elected in 1981.
Dodd is a classic modern-day liberal: he is for gun control, has called for an end to the Iraq War, and has called for environmental and healthcare reform.
He has called, along with a handful of his Democratic colleagues, to restore the Constitution and the right to habeas corpus.
He is against same-sex marraige and for NAFTA and CAFTA; this is one of the ways in which Dodd diverges from this.

On Tuesday: I opine on the War in Iraq.

On the Constitution & its Shrinking Civil Liberties

2007-05-19T23:54:00.000-04:00

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

-Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack

I’ll be blunt: no intro, no opening joke; our Bill of Rights is on the line and in the hands of a destructive Justice Department. With the introduction and twice reintroduction of the PATRIOT Act, the usage of warrantless wiretaps-even though the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act has courts was created to allow for clandestine warranted wiretaps-the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and the lack of countermanding between the DOJ and the Executive Branch, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are being attacked-blatantly and without precedent.

The first attack on our civil liberties was not 9/11, an act of destruction, but the aftermath; the formulation of the USA PATRIOT Act, an act asked for by President Bush to assert his ‘wartime powers’ was the act of terror-or at the very least the countermand to terror. But, while 'protecting' us from 'outside threats,' it has spawned another scandal; the firing of 8 DOJ prosecutors, which would be at least 26 and possibly all prosecutors, and hiring Bush cronies and right-wing loose constructionists would not be possible without the 98-2 vote on the USA PATRIOT Act(Bob Menendez[D-NJ] and Russ Feingold[D-WI] were the only Senators not to vote yea). Also, people who are considered imminent threats cannot get trials; they get 'military tribunals,' in which they are not entitled to a lawyer, not entitled to take the Fifth Amendment, nothing.

And then there was our second Civil Liberties Scandal, in which the President and the DOJ approved the illegal wiretaps of phones of millions, many of them American citizens who were not imminent threats. But, although there is a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, as it is not fully shown to have a written right to privacy; thus, they went right ahead. Even though the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Surveillance Act is in place. Even though the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court has accepted all but four of all warrant applications-a rubber stamp!

Finally, there's the biggest breach of civil liberties of all-the suspension of the right to habeas corpus. Now, all people-citizens or not-cannot receive the reason they are being detained; they are not told the date of a trial; they do not know if there will be a trial to take place.

And then, people ask: who is allowing this to take place? The Bush Cronies in the Department of Justice, that's who. There is supposed to be an act of countermandance, an act of censure, when the Executive Branch steps too far in their duty to carry out law. But this DOJ doesn't do that; they don't uphold the law, they destroy it? Who allowed warrantless wiretaps: Alberto Gonzales and his DOJ didn't just allow it, he supported it and asked for it, too. Who allowed for the PATRIOT Act: John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales did.

And the Senate Judiciary Committee-And the Senate themselves? Where were they when our civil liberties were at risk?! Do they care about our freedom? It's exactly as the great Framer, Ben Franklin, said. But they gave up our safety in the process, putting our country in danger; not from Islamic extremists, but our own Executive Branch.

Monday, we go to the Election 2008 Spotlight on Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd. And remember, join us on June 7th for our preview show of Notepad.

"Good Night, and Good Luck."

-Edward R. Murrow, See It Now

On Education

2007-05-17T19:54:00.000-04:00

Today, my little, elementary-school brother had his "state fair" at his school today; each student had to pick a state and do a poster board on it, along with bring in food, design a sculpture, and do other tasks. And the question arose: why aren't they doing this all the time?

In the Bushworld society we live in, we can foresee three things: death, taxes, and poor education reform. Due to No Child Left Behind, the public education system is deteriorating. Just as the Bush administration wants it to. Here's what's happening:

Due to change in funding set-up, the schools who are doing well-because they have money-are getting more money, while the schools not doing well-mainly in the inner city, because they have no money-get nothing.
Schools and states have to spend more money for the materials for standardized-tests needed to get federal funding, supporting capitalism and big business.
High-schoolers, due to NCLB, unless an opt-out letter is signed, will be phoned, e-mailed, and snail-mailed information on recruiting, closing in on their right to privacy(it's not military recruiting that's bad; it's the way that the recruiters are doing it).

Education is quite an important issue, one issue that people focus on every year, right up there with the economy and national defense. Why isn't anyone standing up for this? Now, with high-stakes testing, principals teach to tests, creating a lack of curricula for rote memorization and learning processes in math, science and spelling. Now, with high-stakes standardized testing, arts and sciences are taken away year by year in favor of test prep upon test prep. Why can't we have both? Here's what we can do:

Give the funding in reverse order: worse schools get the most, best schools get the least.
Have teachers, and not corporations, create these standardized tests.
Allocate funds from the war in Iraq, taking up almost a trillion dollars in our budget, and put it in education.
Decrease class sizes and build more schools in the inner city; small class sizes are proven to raise grades and increase learning.
Finally, make test-prep extracurricular, while keeping the arts and sciences in the curricula.

No post Friday or Sunday. Saturday: On the Constitution and its Shrinking civil liberties. On Monday: A lesson on Chris Dodd.

DC Idol!

2007-05-16T22:09:00.000-04:00

Countdown w/Keith Olbermann, the hit news show on MSNBC, is at it again; why focus on the twenty-odd scandals affecting the Bush administration, and the crisis in Darfur, and the climate crisis, and the threat of terror, and a lack of diplomacy in our society today, when you can have a musical contest, lining up the Best of the Beltway? Yes, it's DC Idol, and it's sweeping the nation! (Well, just this Neo-Populist slanted blog with an author with too much free time on his hands.) Cast your vote on the link below for your favorite, and remember, vote on talent-be nonpartisan!

The nominees are:

General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, singing "YMCA"
Congressman and two-time fringe Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich(D-OH), singing "Sixteen Tons"
Former Attorney General and professed Anti-Semitic John Ashcroft, singing "Let the Eagles Soar"
Bush administration political advisor and "Bush's Brain" Karl "MC" Rove
Former President Bill Clinton singing "Imagine"

Watch the nominees and cast your vote at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18682547/

Czars, Wars and Abortion Bars?

2007-05-16T21:37:00.001-04:00

First of all, disregard the idiot's rhyme in the title. If you enjoyed the rhyme in the title, disregard the first sentence. The title represents the faults of Karl Rove and the Bush Administration, with the 'war czar' enactment, the War in Iraq boondoggle-and Congress' plan to end any legislation by shuffling their feet, and the Republican debate, from which all laid down their abortion stances on the line.

First, the war czar scandal, if you like to call it a scandal(we all know the Bush administration has had enough of the 's word'). President Bush has asked for the past two months for a 'war czar,' or, as the exceedingly long title puts it, "Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan," who would brief the president on the sister wars and hold gravitas over the Pentagon, is quite a stupid idea. First of all, there are just too many people advising on the subject of the Wars on Terror, such as the National Security Advisor, the Joint Chiefs, and the director of CENTCOM, that a war czar isn't necessary. Second, this decision on a war czar has to go to the Senate, based on the fact that Mr. Bush has nominated 3-star Lieutenant General Douglas Lute was nominated. I'm surprised twofold: primarily that the Bush Administration actually nominated someone who is not one of the Bush cronies, and secondarily that they didn't know the Senate rules, that the Senate has to confirm any new job of a three-star or above general, which will make it, as Sen. Trent Lott said about the Iraq War Funding Bill, "Dead on arrival." Finally, there is absolutely no way of spinning this: “Even the spinning champion[White House press secretary Tony Snow]…could not spin the subject of a war czar," said MSNBC host Keith Olbermann on the subject of Tony Snow trying to approve of this at today's White House press briefing.

Secondly, there is the subject of the War in Iraq itself. With two regulations on the war being rejected in the Senate just today, three in the past two months, when will the Senate understand that people are dying there? When will the Senate understand that our young men and women, some under 20 years old, will return home with prosthetics, and some will return home with Post-partum Depression Syndrome, if not some 20-year olds and teenagers returning from Iraq and Fallujah in body bags?! When will the Senate understand that Iraq will not break into civil war if we leave; it is already in civil war. Just today, in the Green Zone, a mortar bomb exploded, killing a few while injuring dozens. This is the Green Zone-which is supposed to be safe! And yet neither the Democratic nor the Republican Parties will not come to a happy medium to solve such a macabre and morally backwards subject!

Finally, staying on the topic of morally backwards, the GOP debate was last night on the Faux News Channel. Republican candidates, along with Libertarian Candidate Rep. Ron Paul(TX), debated on several topics, including abortion. Many GOP candidates called themselves flip-flops(and what a time to be talking about summer footwear) in the debate, one of a possible six leading up to the primaries, and rightfully so; many have changed their stance on abortion, such as Mitt Romney, while others have quasi-changed it, such as former New York City mayor Rudy Guliani. This is growing worse than John Kerry's "I voted for it...before I voted against it" speech on Iraq; these are Republican candidates, and front-runner Republican candidates at that, having to change their opinion-on a Republican-spawned, Karl Rove "wedge issue!" The hilarity of this is overwhelming.

Well, there you have it. A GOP in shambles, with Presidents Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt rolling in their graves.

"Patriotism means to stand by your country. It does not mean to stand by your President."

-President Theodore Roosevelt(R-NY)

Election 2008 Spotlight: Mitt Romney

2007-05-15T20:12:00.000-04:00

Hey, guys. So, I come home after a long day at school and at work, and I look in my mailbox, finding a (late) edition of TIME Magazine-with a large portrait of Former Gov. Mitt Romney(R-MA) on the cover. Aside from the fact that his first name is Willard, I really knew everything about him. In layman's knowledge, here's what you need to know to vote right in
Twenty-ought-eight on Mitt Romney:

His father was a politician, running for(and winning) the gubernatorial election in Michigan, but losing his senatorial election. Mitt considers his father, George, his hero.
His father also was a businessman, buying American Motor Company and turning it into a reputable national car company.
Mitt is former governor in Massachussetts, in which he was strict on economic reform, while spending billions upon billions for the infamous Boston 'Big Dig' project.
Mitt helped save the '02 Olympics in Salt Lake City from corruption and bankruptcy, making it, in my opinion, one of the best Winter Olympics ever.
Mitt is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.(In other words, he's Mormon.[I think you know that.])
Mitt can't decide on any Karl Rove 'wedge issue.' On abortion: he hates it, but thinks that women have a Constitutional right to choose(which he developed over time-a few months, to be exact); on gun control: he supports it but is against it(after he started his campaign, saying he was an avid hunter; he really just hunted twice for "varmints"); the list goes on. Any question why his nickname in some political circles is "Multiple-Choice Mitt?'
He raised the most money in the first 6 months of his campaign(the 'money primary').

So, there it is. Mitt Romney, everybody. (Not a lot).

Next week, we go to the other side of the aisle, talking about Sen. Chris Dodd(D-CT).

On Energy and the Environment

2007-05-12T23:25:00.000-04:00

First, a Happy Mother's Day to all who are reading, their mothers, their grandmothers, et cetera.

I am quite a believer in environmental reform. Being on my high school's Students for the Preservation of the Earth club, I believe we have to break away from our Hummer-using, gas-guzzling attitude and start to conserve. There are many ways in which we can do this:

Rewrite the tax code, rewriting any loopholes(especially for businesses). Then, formulate a tax break for businesses that use at least 50% of gross income for research, development, and marketing of alternative energy sources.
Create recycling systems and increase marketing for mini-flourescent bulbs(the 'spiral bulbs').
Do what the Europeans do: when using nuclear power, recycle nuclear waste.
Increase CAFE standards(gas mileage standards, not the amount of caffeine at your corner Starbucks) to 30 MPG.
Finally, encourage American car companies to create alternative energy cars, which would decrease carbon emissions and increase jobs.

In conclusion, there are a variety of things we can do. Then, the question lies: why aren't we doing anything about the climate change problem? Why isn't the Bush administration doing anything about it? The answer is simple: The Bushes are from the highest 1%! They are, and have always been, in cahoots with the oil industry! That's the reason why gas prices are going up!

I know I sound like a liberal hack by saying it's the Bush administration's fault, but they're not the only ones to blame. The modern media has erred in not covering the climate crisis-and the gas crisis-enough, and (dare I say it, being a union supporter) it is the UAW's fault as well, being that they have stood strong for years that they do not want to raise CAFE standards.

There are a lot of people to blame, but we have no time to blame. All that we can do is reform and change.

Send to the Notepad

2007-05-11T21:59:00.000-04:00

Anyone who's interested in the show(coming June 11)-please send your e-mails to mailbag.notepad@gmail.com. I'll read off and answer the e-mails on each week's Friday "Town Hall" show.

Daniel

What I Believe

2007-05-11T21:50:00.000-04:00

I consider myself neither a Democrat, nor a Republican, nor an Independent. I consider myself a Neo-Populist. If you're new to politics and political history, The Populist Party was a third party at the turn of the 21st Century, that believed in unions, increased minting of silver, and labor regulations.

We need to return to this era, to fight not for the fascists, but for the people, for whom the Framers built this country upon, by, of, and for. Obviously, the Free Silver Party isn't making a comeback, but what about reform in education, voting rights, the economy, and national defense?

Why must we follow the 24-hour 'newstainment' cycle, laden with entertainment news and 'wedge issues' such as abortion and homosexual marriage and rights? We don't have to follow it; we can-no, we must-change it.

Daniel

P.S. For more info on the Populist Party, please read former Senator-and Presidential candidate-Mike Gravel(D-AK)'s book, Citizen Power.

Welcome to Notepad

2007-05-11T21:42:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the Notepad blog, in which the new political radio show will be broadcast. New shows, broadcast from Rosedale, Queens, NY, will be posted on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays.

Every now and then(probably every other day), I'll be posting my own political commentaries, be it the Bush administration, Congress, and the political effects on education, science, national defense, et cetera.

Enjoy the blog.

Daniel Pecoraro
THHS Class of 2010