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)
04 October 2008
03 October 2008
90 Minutes After the Debate (47½ Hours Until Tina Fey)
(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.
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.
02 October 2008
25 Minutes Until the Debate
(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.
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.
26 September 2008
90 Minutes after the Debate
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.
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
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).
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).
16 September 2008
Daily Brief-49 Days until Election '08
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).
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).
30 August 2008
Remarks of the DNC and VP Choices
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
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
07 August 2008
On Energy
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.
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.
14 June 2008
New Video Details
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
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
30 May 2008
On Elmo and War
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.
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.
15 May 2008
Sorry
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 Elmo and War (seriously)
On Edwards, Elitism, and Ego
And also, be prepared for a Notepad video show, coming this July!
Daniel
29 January 2008
On the Sanctity of Our Constitution
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.
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.
29 December 2007
Awards!
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.
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.
23 October 2007
On Social Issues and Hypocrisy
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?
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?
29 September 2007
Campaign 2008: Handicapping the Senatorial Elections: Part I
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
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
16 August 2007
On The Scariest Idea I Have Ever Heard
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.
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.
09 August 2007
Why Mike Gravel Hinders the Presidential Race...And Why We're Focusing On This Now-A Campaign 2008 Spotlight Exclusive
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.
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.
06 August 2007
On the Twin Genocides
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.
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.
23 July 2007
Debating on-and with-The Tube
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.
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.
29 June 2007
On Healthcare
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
