I was relieved to see Romney win Michigan because I hated the idea of the Republican nomination coming down to either McCain or Huckabee. But does Romney get any kind of real credit from the Mainstream Media? Not really. They all buy the line used by McCain that he was essentially a lock-in since he was trolling for votes in his own backyard.
In fact, it seems like the only kind of coverage the media will give Romney is of the negative kind. They made a huge deal of his disagreement with the AP reporter yesterday, describing him as losing his temper. Well, I beg to differ. If you watch the entire clip you'll see that he keeps his cool fairly well...it's the reporter that's huffy and rude and (dare I say it) hardly objective. Of course this guy, Glen Johnson, is the same guy who used to have it in for Romney when he wrote for the Boston Globe. Ah well, at least Romney gets covered. After all, the corporations that own all these media companies have nothing to fear from him.
But what about John Edwards? His campaign has been complaining for a long time now that they're being ignored by the MSM (that's short for mainstream media) and, finally, there's a study out that proves it. The Project for Excellence in Journalism recently took an in-depth look at all the campaign stories from January 6th through January 11th of this year, and guess what they found? Clinton was the main focus or a significant presence in 37% of the stories. Obama was the main focus or significant presence in 32% of the stories. And Edwards? Surprise, surprise! Much like his current standing in the national polls, he was the main focus or a significant presence in only 7% of the campaign stories. Gee, do you think his poll numbers might rise if they gave his campaign more coverage?
Check out this new video, poking fun at the whole situation. I particularly enjoy the ending with Sean Hannity because it makes it all so clear:
Today, in a grass roots effort, supporters of John Edwards are trying to make a point to the mainstream media by trying to donate, in one day, upwards of $7 million to his campaign. It's apparent from the focus group at the end that all John needs to do is get coverage to get his message out there. Let's send a HUGE message to the media and help Edwards put his message out there by going to johnedwards.com and contributing today!
And one more thing. Here's another video in case you think Edwards' campaign has had no impact on this race. Clinton and Obama have been following his lead all along. Why? Because they recognize a winning message when they hear it:
Friday, January 18, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A Little Humor on Michigan Primary Day
As I nervously await results in the Michigan Primary (hoping for a Romney win over McCain...since the Democrats aren't really in play), it helps to take a step back and laugh a bit at this whole election year. With that in mind, I direct you to the Star Wars Guide to the 2008 Presidential Election, published recently on craigslist.
As a teaser, guess who, from the pictures above, has been deemed this election cycle's Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, and Lando Calrissian?
Enter the following website in your URL and have a few chuckles:
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/526482501.html
Monday, January 14, 2008
I Always Go for the Underdog
I can't help myself. I love to see the proud and mighty brought down, humbled. David did it to Goliath and politics sure does seem to resemble war lately, doesn't it? The way Clinton and Obama are exchanging blows back and forth I just hope it doesn't leave them both flattened...UNLESS it means that the public finally takes a good long look at John Edwards.
Let them take aim at each other. Edwards has got the true enemy in his sights: the secret money interests that have Washington (and the American people) by the throat. I'm realistic, though. He's lagging far behind in the polls now. He doesn't have anywhere near the funds that his Democratic rivals boast of. And his supporters are probably beginning to hedge their bets. I know I have.
But then I see a video like the one below and I'm reminded again why Edwards' candidacy is so important. He may not win, but it is crucial that his message be heard by as many Americans as possible. There's a moment in the video where you can see Bill Richardson in the background glance toward Hillary Clinton and smile as Edwards is trying to make his point during the last debate, as if to say "Here he goes again...and he hasn't got a chance." That may be, but I understand now why he's in it through the convention. He wants that platform at the Democratic Convention in Denver so that he can reach the biggest American audience possible with his message. Besides, maybe he'll surprise everyone and win this thing.
In any case, I always go for the underdog. Go Edwards!
Let them take aim at each other. Edwards has got the true enemy in his sights: the secret money interests that have Washington (and the American people) by the throat. I'm realistic, though. He's lagging far behind in the polls now. He doesn't have anywhere near the funds that his Democratic rivals boast of. And his supporters are probably beginning to hedge their bets. I know I have.
But then I see a video like the one below and I'm reminded again why Edwards' candidacy is so important. He may not win, but it is crucial that his message be heard by as many Americans as possible. There's a moment in the video where you can see Bill Richardson in the background glance toward Hillary Clinton and smile as Edwards is trying to make his point during the last debate, as if to say "Here he goes again...and he hasn't got a chance." That may be, but I understand now why he's in it through the convention. He wants that platform at the Democratic Convention in Denver so that he can reach the biggest American audience possible with his message. Besides, maybe he'll surprise everyone and win this thing.
In any case, I always go for the underdog. Go Edwards!
Friday, January 11, 2008
This Country Needs a Diaper Change
Inspired by the humorous and brilliant cartoon above (created obviously before the New Hampshire results, since now Republican Mitt Romney is also calling for change), I hereby declare that America is long overdue for a diaper change!
Now we know that when the baby has done its "business" we not only throw out the business but the diaper, as well, IF it is disposable. So we need to ask ourselves, "Is our diaper (i.e., Washington insiders...the ones who carry the business) the kind we can wash out and launder? Or do we need a new set of diapers? And if so, should they be the cheapest name brand or the more expensive kind that are bio-degradable (i.e., uncontaminated by money, lobbyists, etc.)?
Think about it.
We Need Another Debate
Now don't groan. I know we've had three times as many debates as in any previous presidential primary already and it's gotten to the point that we can predict what sound bite will come out of each candidate's mouth as soon as the question is posed.
But the debate we need is different. Everyone agrees that we have entered into an age where science and technology are at the forefront and if we are not careful, America will soon be left in the dust by such countries as China, India, and Japan. As a result, concerned citizens and scientists throughout the country are calling for a different, focused debate to guage the level of awareness of each candidate when it comes to science and technology.
There is an on-line petition at www.sciencedebate2008.com and I urge all of you to check it out and sign it. In this age of health care needs, diminishing science and math educational scores, and global warming, our next President has to be an individual who is aware of our weaknesses in these areas and has a vision and plan to make them strengths.
As they put it on the website:
Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.
Join in the call to have such a debate before these primaries go on much longer.
But the debate we need is different. Everyone agrees that we have entered into an age where science and technology are at the forefront and if we are not careful, America will soon be left in the dust by such countries as China, India, and Japan. As a result, concerned citizens and scientists throughout the country are calling for a different, focused debate to guage the level of awareness of each candidate when it comes to science and technology.
There is an on-line petition at www.sciencedebate2008.com and I urge all of you to check it out and sign it. In this age of health care needs, diminishing science and math educational scores, and global warming, our next President has to be an individual who is aware of our weaknesses in these areas and has a vision and plan to make them strengths.
As they put it on the website:
Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.
Join in the call to have such a debate before these primaries go on much longer.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
No More Polling, Please
Everyone today, especially the media, is scratching their heads over Hillary's unexpected victory over Obama in New Hampshire yesterday. There has been analysis ad nauseum as to how the pollsters could have gotten it so wrong. Possible causes discussed have included racism, the gender gap, polls not going on long enough, inaccurate and unprofessional exit polling, college kids being away on break, the way Obama and Edwards seemed to gang up on her in Saturday's debate, and certainly Hillary's Emo-Moment (when she teared up) which was broadcast for all to see over and over the day before the polls opened.
I imagine some, if not all, of these may have played some role in upsetting the apple cart. But I think two pundits from the Northeast hit the nail on the head when they said people from New Hampshire like to keep their vote secret and it's not a federal offense to lie to a pollster.
I love it! That should become a national movement. If all Americans would stop agreeing to answer these pollsters, I think a lot of the money spent on these elections would drop significantly. Why? For one thing, candidates wouldn't have to put more ads out to respond to a drop in the polls. Their campaigns wouldn't have to pay for polling at all.
And the best part of all? IT WOULD DRIVE THE MEDIA CRAZY! Americans, let's take back our government by holding our cards close to the vest. Then they'll never know what hit them when we go all in for the candidate of OUR choice (not the media's...OURS).
I imagine some, if not all, of these may have played some role in upsetting the apple cart. But I think two pundits from the Northeast hit the nail on the head when they said people from New Hampshire like to keep their vote secret and it's not a federal offense to lie to a pollster.
I love it! That should become a national movement. If all Americans would stop agreeing to answer these pollsters, I think a lot of the money spent on these elections would drop significantly. Why? For one thing, candidates wouldn't have to put more ads out to respond to a drop in the polls. Their campaigns wouldn't have to pay for polling at all.
And the best part of all? IT WOULD DRIVE THE MEDIA CRAZY! Americans, let's take back our government by holding our cards close to the vest. Then they'll never know what hit them when we go all in for the candidate of OUR choice (not the media's...OURS).
Some Background on Governor Huckabee
Mike Huckabee seems to have a real shot at the Republican nomination and, while he is an excellent communicator and debater, I believe there are many things Americans may not yet know about his background, record, views, and experience...things which might cast a different light on this "positive, charming" Southern politician.
He is an ordained Evangelical preacher.
He was a former understudy of Texas televangelist James Robison.
Huckabee has credited divine intervention with some of his political success.
He believes in biblical inerrancy, which says that the Bible is totally without error and completely accurate, including the historical and scientific parts.
He believes our 4.5 billion-year-old Earth is only 6000 years old.
He said that humans did not evolve from “primates” (apparently forgetting that human beings are primates).
He proudly stated that if he becomes president, science will take a back seat to religion. “Science changes with every generation and God doesn’t. So I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict,” he said.
As governor of Arkansas he rejected the teaching of evolution in schools, resulting in that state receiving an F for its science standards from an independent nationwide survey.
In 2001 Huckabee urged student districts to allow students to pray and proclaimed October as "Student Religious Liberty Month.”
He opposes the separation of church our founding fathers established. He said, “When people say we ought to separate politics from religion, I say to separate the two is absolutely impossible.”
He believes that Armageddon is right around the corner, and that all non-Christians are eternally damned.
In 2002, Huckabee ran for Governor and his wife Janet ran for Arkansas Secretary of State. The New York Times reported this set off an "avalanche of criticism." Mike Huckabee won his race with 53 percent of the vote, while his wife Janet lost her race by 62% to 38%.
Shortly before announcing his candidacy for the President of the United States, Huckabee ordered that the drives of 83 computers and 4 servers be destroyed during his transition phase in leaving office. Documents, e-mails and memos stored on hard drives formed the basis of embarrassing stories about Huckabee, including the allegations regarding personal use of the Governor's Mansion funds. (He does kind of remind me of Nixon, though he's much more charming.)
In 1992, when it was clear that HIV/AIDS was not spread by casual contact, Huckabee advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general population.
He said that a “holocaust of abortions” has artificially created a demand for Mexican labor in the U.S.
As governor of Arkansas he increased state spending 65.3 percent (1996–2004) and supported five tax increases (increasing taxes more than $500 million). He used a taxpayer fund for personal expenses like dog food, pantyhose, and Taco Bell meals, and used inaugural funds to pay for his wife’s clothes.
In November 2006, both Huckabee and his wife drew criticism for creating wedding registries in the amount of over $6000 at both the Target and Dillard's web sites, in conjunction with a housewarming party to celebrate a new house they had purchased in Little Rock.
Arkansas-based Wal-Mart is his biggest campaign donor.
Huckabee supports the ongoing War in Iraq and the troop surge.
He said, “One thing I salute about the president is No Child Left Behind, and no matter what you've heard about it let me tell you it's the best thing that ever happened in education.”
As governor of Arkansas he blocked Medicaid from funding an abortion for a mentally retarded teenager raped by her stepfather (his actions violated federal law which requires states to pay for abortions in cases of rape).
His son was fired as a counselor at a Boy Scout camp for allegedly hanging a stray dog and Huckabee was criticized for covering up the incident. "Without question, [Huckabee] was making a conscious attempt to keep the state police from investigating his son," says I. C. Smith, the former FBI chief in Little Rock,
As governor he was criticized for his handling of the case of Wayne DuMond, a convicted rapist who was released during Huckabee's governorship and who subsequently sexually assaulted and murdered a woman in Missouri.
In December 2007, he used the death of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto as an opportunity to lecture on his illegal immigration policy proclaiming that Pakistan has more illegal immigrants to the United States than any country but Mexico ( INS data indicates that Pakistan is nowhere near the top of the list). Many were puzzled at the connection between the death of the late prime minister and Huckabee’s immigration policy.
In 2006 he pardoned Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards from a reckless driving conviction that happened in Arkansas in 1975.
On December 26, 2007 the conservative organization Judicial Watch announced that Mike Huckabee was named to its list of Washington’s "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2007. They state that Huckabee, as governor, was the subject of "14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office." Judicial Watch further accused Huckabee of attempting to block the state ethics commission's investigations of the allegations.
He has lost 100 pounds. He compared his weight loss to the experience of a concentration camp, for which the National Jewish Democratic Council chastised Huckabee.
These are all things that ought to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to support this man as our next president. Since he's turned his focus on South Carolina now, after a third place finish in New Hampshire, I hope the citizens of that state will take a long, hard look at him before they cast their ballot his way.
He is an ordained Evangelical preacher.
He was a former understudy of Texas televangelist James Robison.
Huckabee has credited divine intervention with some of his political success.
He believes in biblical inerrancy, which says that the Bible is totally without error and completely accurate, including the historical and scientific parts.
He believes our 4.5 billion-year-old Earth is only 6000 years old.
He said that humans did not evolve from “primates” (apparently forgetting that human beings are primates).
He proudly stated that if he becomes president, science will take a back seat to religion. “Science changes with every generation and God doesn’t. So I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict,” he said.
As governor of Arkansas he rejected the teaching of evolution in schools, resulting in that state receiving an F for its science standards from an independent nationwide survey.
In 2001 Huckabee urged student districts to allow students to pray and proclaimed October as "Student Religious Liberty Month.”
He opposes the separation of church our founding fathers established. He said, “When people say we ought to separate politics from religion, I say to separate the two is absolutely impossible.”
He believes that Armageddon is right around the corner, and that all non-Christians are eternally damned.
In 2002, Huckabee ran for Governor and his wife Janet ran for Arkansas Secretary of State. The New York Times reported this set off an "avalanche of criticism." Mike Huckabee won his race with 53 percent of the vote, while his wife Janet lost her race by 62% to 38%.
Shortly before announcing his candidacy for the President of the United States, Huckabee ordered that the drives of 83 computers and 4 servers be destroyed during his transition phase in leaving office. Documents, e-mails and memos stored on hard drives formed the basis of embarrassing stories about Huckabee, including the allegations regarding personal use of the Governor's Mansion funds. (He does kind of remind me of Nixon, though he's much more charming.)
In 1992, when it was clear that HIV/AIDS was not spread by casual contact, Huckabee advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general population.
He said that a “holocaust of abortions” has artificially created a demand for Mexican labor in the U.S.
As governor of Arkansas he increased state spending 65.3 percent (1996–2004) and supported five tax increases (increasing taxes more than $500 million). He used a taxpayer fund for personal expenses like dog food, pantyhose, and Taco Bell meals, and used inaugural funds to pay for his wife’s clothes.
In November 2006, both Huckabee and his wife drew criticism for creating wedding registries in the amount of over $6000 at both the Target and Dillard's web sites, in conjunction with a housewarming party to celebrate a new house they had purchased in Little Rock.
Arkansas-based Wal-Mart is his biggest campaign donor.
Huckabee supports the ongoing War in Iraq and the troop surge.
He said, “One thing I salute about the president is No Child Left Behind, and no matter what you've heard about it let me tell you it's the best thing that ever happened in education.”
As governor of Arkansas he blocked Medicaid from funding an abortion for a mentally retarded teenager raped by her stepfather (his actions violated federal law which requires states to pay for abortions in cases of rape).
His son was fired as a counselor at a Boy Scout camp for allegedly hanging a stray dog and Huckabee was criticized for covering up the incident. "Without question, [Huckabee] was making a conscious attempt to keep the state police from investigating his son," says I. C. Smith, the former FBI chief in Little Rock,
As governor he was criticized for his handling of the case of Wayne DuMond, a convicted rapist who was released during Huckabee's governorship and who subsequently sexually assaulted and murdered a woman in Missouri.
In December 2007, he used the death of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto as an opportunity to lecture on his illegal immigration policy proclaiming that Pakistan has more illegal immigrants to the United States than any country but Mexico ( INS data indicates that Pakistan is nowhere near the top of the list). Many were puzzled at the connection between the death of the late prime minister and Huckabee’s immigration policy.
In 2006 he pardoned Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards from a reckless driving conviction that happened in Arkansas in 1975.
On December 26, 2007 the conservative organization Judicial Watch announced that Mike Huckabee was named to its list of Washington’s "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2007. They state that Huckabee, as governor, was the subject of "14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office." Judicial Watch further accused Huckabee of attempting to block the state ethics commission's investigations of the allegations.
He has lost 100 pounds. He compared his weight loss to the experience of a concentration camp, for which the National Jewish Democratic Council chastised Huckabee.
These are all things that ought to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to support this man as our next president. Since he's turned his focus on South Carolina now, after a third place finish in New Hampshire, I hope the citizens of that state will take a long, hard look at him before they cast their ballot his way.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Obama Needs a Closer Look
As I write this, all reports coming out of New Hampshire seem to forecast a huge win for Barack Obama because turnout is unprecedented. I think it's still tight on the Republican side between McCain and Romney, but no one has any doubts that Obama is about to add another win to his column...and in a big way. The thing I'm looking for is whether Clinton will keep it close or if she'll be passed at the end by Edwards again.
In any case, it is clear that Obama's train has left the station and Edwards and Hillary can only hope to hold on to the caboose to fight again in Nevada, South Carolina, etc.
So how much do we know about this man the press is currently fawning over? What do we really know about his years in the Illinois State Senate? How much did his community organizing work prepare him to make the kinds of huge, sweeping CHANGE he so poetically calls out for? And, most important, how did a one-term U.S. Senator manage to equal the Clinton machine in fundraising?
We need more of these answers before we follow this "prophet" (after all, Chris Matthews, in his usual bloviating way, compared Barack to Moses) to the mountain. At least one journalist has begun delving into his money machine and it looks like this young champion of ethics reform in the Senate has something he wants to hide. Check out Lynn Sweet's piece at
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/01/sweet_obama_secretive_about_fu.html
While I am not an admirer of Hillary, I think her campaign does have a point. Before we anoint this unknown quantity of hope, we ought to know more about HOW he got where he is and HOW (specifically) he proposes to take us to the mountain.
In any case, it is clear that Obama's train has left the station and Edwards and Hillary can only hope to hold on to the caboose to fight again in Nevada, South Carolina, etc.
So how much do we know about this man the press is currently fawning over? What do we really know about his years in the Illinois State Senate? How much did his community organizing work prepare him to make the kinds of huge, sweeping CHANGE he so poetically calls out for? And, most important, how did a one-term U.S. Senator manage to equal the Clinton machine in fundraising?
We need more of these answers before we follow this "prophet" (after all, Chris Matthews, in his usual bloviating way, compared Barack to Moses) to the mountain. At least one journalist has begun delving into his money machine and it looks like this young champion of ethics reform in the Senate has something he wants to hide. Check out Lynn Sweet's piece at
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/01/sweet_obama_secretive_about_fu.html
While I am not an admirer of Hillary, I think her campaign does have a point. Before we anoint this unknown quantity of hope, we ought to know more about HOW he got where he is and HOW (specifically) he proposes to take us to the mountain.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Barack Obama on Iraq
Other than Dennis Kucinich (who clearly cannot win the Democratic nomination), Senator Obama is the only Democratic candidate who opposed the war from the beginning (although, to be fair, he was not a U.S. Senator at the time). So how would he propose to end the war and bring our troops home?
The following represents his policy on the matter (as taken from his website):
Barack Obama's Plan
Judgment You Can Trust
As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution
within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our
combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as
president.
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
The following represents his policy on the matter (as taken from his website):
Barack Obama's Plan
Judgment You Can Trust
As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution
within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our
combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as
president.
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
Mike Huckabee on Iraq
A couple of months ago, Americans hardly knew the former governor of Arkansas. His sudden rise in the polls on the Republican side, followed by his victory in Iowa last night, have been spectacular and unexpected...miraculous, as he would put it. It's time we got to know where he stands on the issues.
Taken directly from his website, the following represents his position on Iraq (It seems well thought out and reasonable, from a Republican point of view...my question remains, How much of it really represents his own thinking and how much was crafted by a hired expert? He has not proven himself adept lately in the area of foreign affairs.):
Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror.
The Democrats deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda seeks permanent bases in Anbar province to plot and train against us.
General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraq government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors.
The surge is a military means to achieve the political end of sectarian reconciliation among the Iraqis.
Setting a timetable for withdrawal is a mistake. This country has never declared war until "a week from Wednesday," we have always declared war until victory.
I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis.
I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become militarily and financially committed to stabilizing Iraq.
Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror. The Democrats delusionally deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda is a major ally of the Sunni insurgents in their fight against the Shiite majority. One of the most significant events in the Iraq War was Al Qaeda's bombing of the Shiites' Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006. That bombing led to the dramatic rise in sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites we've seen ever since, furthering Al Qaeda's goal of fomenting chaos and civil war. What's in it for them? They need territory, a place to plot their evil and train their murderers for another September 11. Al Qaeda intends to keep and expand its bases in the Sunni area of Anbar province. But we've made great progress in denying Al Qaeda that Anbar sanctuary, where the Commandant of the Marines, General Conway, says that "we have turned the corner." Fourteen of Anbar's eighteen tribal leaders no longer support Al Qaeda.
General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors. The surge has only been in place since the middle of June, but progress has already been made. It's way too early to write an obituary for the surge as the Democrat defeatists are doing. Having unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to lead the surge, the Democrats should let him do the job they sent him to do and await his report in mid-September. They're Monday morning quarterbacking while we're still playing the game, and some of us are playing to win.
To pressure the Iraqis into seizing the day before darkness descends, President Bush and Secretary Gates have been emphatic that this window will not remain open forever. At the same time, setting a timetable for withdrawal tells our enemies they don't have to win, they just have to wait. We have never in our history declared war until "a week from Wednesday," we have always declared war until victory.
I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis. If we leave, Iraq's neighbors on all sides will face a refugee crisis and be drawn into the war: Iran to protect the Shiites; Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to protect the Sunnis; and Turkey to protect its control over its own Kurd population. Iraq is a crossroads where Arab meets Persian and Kurd, Sunni meets Shiite, so if it's not a peaceful buffer, it can easily become a tinder box for the region. When we deposed Saddam, we emphasized Iraq's central location as a prime place to establish democracy and have it spread. That was the potential dramatic upside. Now we're faced with the potential dramatic downside that the terrorists are fighting to take advantage of: Iraq's central location as a prime place to create chaos and have it spread .
I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become financially and militarily committed to stabilizing Iraq now rather than financially and militarily committed to widening the war later. This summit will add more voices, Muslim voices, to the pressure to perform we're already applying to the Maliki government.
Taken directly from his website, the following represents his position on Iraq (It seems well thought out and reasonable, from a Republican point of view...my question remains, How much of it really represents his own thinking and how much was crafted by a hired expert? He has not proven himself adept lately in the area of foreign affairs.):
Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror.
The Democrats deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda seeks permanent bases in Anbar province to plot and train against us.
General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraq government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors.
The surge is a military means to achieve the political end of sectarian reconciliation among the Iraqis.
Setting a timetable for withdrawal is a mistake. This country has never declared war until "a week from Wednesday," we have always declared war until victory.
I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis.
I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become militarily and financially committed to stabilizing Iraq.
Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror. The Democrats delusionally deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda is a major ally of the Sunni insurgents in their fight against the Shiite majority. One of the most significant events in the Iraq War was Al Qaeda's bombing of the Shiites' Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006. That bombing led to the dramatic rise in sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites we've seen ever since, furthering Al Qaeda's goal of fomenting chaos and civil war. What's in it for them? They need territory, a place to plot their evil and train their murderers for another September 11. Al Qaeda intends to keep and expand its bases in the Sunni area of Anbar province. But we've made great progress in denying Al Qaeda that Anbar sanctuary, where the Commandant of the Marines, General Conway, says that "we have turned the corner." Fourteen of Anbar's eighteen tribal leaders no longer support Al Qaeda.
General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors. The surge has only been in place since the middle of June, but progress has already been made. It's way too early to write an obituary for the surge as the Democrat defeatists are doing. Having unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to lead the surge, the Democrats should let him do the job they sent him to do and await his report in mid-September. They're Monday morning quarterbacking while we're still playing the game, and some of us are playing to win.
To pressure the Iraqis into seizing the day before darkness descends, President Bush and Secretary Gates have been emphatic that this window will not remain open forever. At the same time, setting a timetable for withdrawal tells our enemies they don't have to win, they just have to wait. We have never in our history declared war until "a week from Wednesday," we have always declared war until victory.
I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis. If we leave, Iraq's neighbors on all sides will face a refugee crisis and be drawn into the war: Iran to protect the Shiites; Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to protect the Sunnis; and Turkey to protect its control over its own Kurd population. Iraq is a crossroads where Arab meets Persian and Kurd, Sunni meets Shiite, so if it's not a peaceful buffer, it can easily become a tinder box for the region. When we deposed Saddam, we emphasized Iraq's central location as a prime place to establish democracy and have it spread. That was the potential dramatic upside. Now we're faced with the potential dramatic downside that the terrorists are fighting to take advantage of: Iraq's central location as a prime place to create chaos and have it spread .
I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become financially and militarily committed to stabilizing Iraq now rather than financially and militarily committed to widening the war later. This summit will add more voices, Muslim voices, to the pressure to perform we're already applying to the Maliki government.
Iowa Has Spoken
Everyone pretty much agrees that Iowans were voting for change above all when they stood up for the candidates of their choice in precincts all over the state last night. The change agents on both sides finished 1-2, with both first place finishers--Obama and Huckabee--soundly trouncing the rest of the field. Edwards narrowly defeated Clinton for 2nd place on the Democratic side and appears to be taking the message that it's him or Obama to the people of New Hampshire. Romney, unable to convert enough evangelicals, still finished 2nd among Republicans and now looks to New Hampshire to confirm his status as a change agent in Washington...particularly when compared with McCain, so long a fixture in Washington.
We'll see if Edwards is successful in replacing the Washington insider, Hillary, as Obama's main competition now. It will be a mighty uphill battle, given her advantage in organization, connections, and money. He and his wife are comparing it to the Seabiscuit phenomenon back in the days of the Depression...basically, he's the "people's horse." It reminds me equally of the little engine that could, huffing and puffing its way to keep up with 2 streamlined supersonic trains. But Americans, myself included, love an underdog and so we'll have to see if the people rally to his side in the coming few weeks.
And Romney will try to convince those from the Granite state that they can no longer afford to put the government in the hands of such a Washington insider as McCain...that they should trust his proven management expertise to right this ship of state. Unlike Edwards, he has the money, the organization, and many connections with corporate America. He can stay in the campaign for some time longer. But what he apparently can't do is get most Americans to trust a Mormon.
Being Mormon myself, that's a hard pill to swallow... but I took a long look at the results of each precinct caucus in Iowa (published in the New York Times this morning) and Huckabee bested Romney by a far wider margin in those he won than Obama did with his competitors in the precincts he carried. Either Iowans didn't like Romney's so-called attack ads, or they didn't like his religion. I hope it was the former. Otherwise, it might appear that, while racism has declined, bigotry is still alive and well in our country.
In any case, how did you heed the Iowa Caucus returns? Did you ignore them altogether? Did you forego them for another BCS bowl game? I decided, yesterday morning at the last minute, to kick off the political season with an "Iowa Caucus Watch Party." So, with the support of my husband, I called and invited around 20 couples and about a third showed up. Even though the results were announced all too quickly, we had a great time talking and eating...and we even played a quick game I put together trying to match candidates to some of their most humorous or outlandish quotes.
This primary year is steaming full speed ahead, but 2008 is too important a year to ignore or dismiss. I encourage all of you to start paying attention now if you haven't already tuned in and take part in the political process. Tune in to tomorrow night's debate on ABC at 7 pm (Eastern time)... even if you can only stomach it by throwing a party!
We'll see if Edwards is successful in replacing the Washington insider, Hillary, as Obama's main competition now. It will be a mighty uphill battle, given her advantage in organization, connections, and money. He and his wife are comparing it to the Seabiscuit phenomenon back in the days of the Depression...basically, he's the "people's horse." It reminds me equally of the little engine that could, huffing and puffing its way to keep up with 2 streamlined supersonic trains. But Americans, myself included, love an underdog and so we'll have to see if the people rally to his side in the coming few weeks.
And Romney will try to convince those from the Granite state that they can no longer afford to put the government in the hands of such a Washington insider as McCain...that they should trust his proven management expertise to right this ship of state. Unlike Edwards, he has the money, the organization, and many connections with corporate America. He can stay in the campaign for some time longer. But what he apparently can't do is get most Americans to trust a Mormon.
Being Mormon myself, that's a hard pill to swallow... but I took a long look at the results of each precinct caucus in Iowa (published in the New York Times this morning) and Huckabee bested Romney by a far wider margin in those he won than Obama did with his competitors in the precincts he carried. Either Iowans didn't like Romney's so-called attack ads, or they didn't like his religion. I hope it was the former. Otherwise, it might appear that, while racism has declined, bigotry is still alive and well in our country.
In any case, how did you heed the Iowa Caucus returns? Did you ignore them altogether? Did you forego them for another BCS bowl game? I decided, yesterday morning at the last minute, to kick off the political season with an "Iowa Caucus Watch Party." So, with the support of my husband, I called and invited around 20 couples and about a third showed up. Even though the results were announced all too quickly, we had a great time talking and eating...and we even played a quick game I put together trying to match candidates to some of their most humorous or outlandish quotes.
This primary year is steaming full speed ahead, but 2008 is too important a year to ignore or dismiss. I encourage all of you to start paying attention now if you haven't already tuned in and take part in the political process. Tune in to tomorrow night's debate on ABC at 7 pm (Eastern time)... even if you can only stomach it by throwing a party!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
